Business Before Questions

Committee of Selection

That Mike Freer be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Michael Tomlinson be added.—(Stuart Andrew.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

COP26

The COP26 President was asked—

COP26: Policy Objectives

Julian Sturdy: What his policy objectives are for COP26.

Rob Butler: What his policy objectives are for COP26.

Alok Sharma: Our overarching objective of COP26 is to keep within reach the goal of limiting average global temperature rises to 1.5 °C. To achieve that, we have been asking countries to set out ambitious emissions reduction commitments and to come forward with adaptation plans, and asking developed countries to deliver on their climate finance promises and for us collectively to reach agreement on the outstanding elements of the Paris rulebook.

Julian Sturdy: Given the Government’s recent wise decision to recognise that environment-saving gene-editing technology should be recognised differently from GM—genetic modification—will Ministers use COP26 to champion this and other cutting-edge science and technologies that provide some of the best solutions to the problems of sustainability and climate change?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Science and innovation are crucial to tackling climate change and delivering green growth. Innovation will be discussed at the world leaders’ summit at COP26. On 9 November, we will provide a particular focus on discussing and indeed showcasing science and innovation’s role in tackling climate change.

Rob Butler: Along with the national and global policy objectives of COP26, many local voluntary organisations are already raising awareness of the impact of climate change, including Climate Action Wendover, in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work that such organisations do is important in helping people to understand that the only way to reach net zero is by everyone changing the way they behave, at home, at work and in their local community?

Alok Sharma: I congratulate my hon. Friend and Climate Action Wendover on all their work in encouraging climate action from local residents and businesses. Local communities across the country are playing their part in tackling climate change, and the cities, regions and built environment day at COP26 will provide a focus on local community action.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister will know that there is widespread concern about a lack of clarity, as we get so close to COP26, as to what will actually be happening at the summit and what the priorities will be. What discussions has he had with the small island developing states to make sure that their concerns are fully represented, that they have a voice at COP26 and that we come away from it with something that really helps them to meet the challenges they face?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. I have a regular dialogue with representatives of the small island developing states. I have been clear that one thing we want to do through this presidency is champion them and the developing countries that are at the frontline of climate change.

Deidre Brock: It is good to hear that the COP President is interested in the challenges of those developing countries. Climate change’s most severe impacts fall heaviest on those developing countries that had least to do with causing it, and many consequences of climate change are already locked in, regardless of mitigation efforts. Given that, it is vital that COP26 includes an agreement on loss and damage compensation. Are the Government aiming for an equitable loss and damage agreement that compensates developing nations and recognises the disproportionate role of developed nations in causing that loss and damage?

Alok Sharma: Loss and damage is an issue that Ministers have debated at both the London ministerial meeting that I hosted and the pre-COP in Milan. Clearly, what comes forward at COP will be a consensus agreement, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we are determined to make sure that the Santiago Network is operationalised, and of course we will see that further discussions take place on this issue.

Philip Hollobone: Given that more than a quarter of the increase in carbon emissions since 2000 has come from China, are we expecting a strong and prominent Chinese delegation at COP26?

Alok Sharma: There will be a delegation coming from China. As my hon. Friend may know, I was there in September, when I had constructive discussions. China, along with every other country, needs to come forward with ambitious plans to cut emissions by 2030 before COP26.

Progress on Limiting Global Heating

Anna McMorrin: What recent assessment he has made of progress on limiting (a) global heating to below 2 °C and (b) heating to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels ahead of COP26.

Alok Sharma: The commitments by countries at Paris in 2015 bent the curve of global warming to below 2 °C. The International Energy Agency, in a report published last week, has concluded that if countries deliver on all their recent commitments, we are on course for around 2 °C. In order to keep 1.5 °C within reach, all countries, particularly the G20 nations, need to submit ambitious 2030 emission reduction targets and of course commit to net zero by the middle of the century.

Anna McMorrin: The Minister talks of ambitious plans, but the net zero road map published by the Government yesterday is weak on land and agriculture, and 20% of the UK’s annual emissions come from natural resources. No plan can claim to build back greener unless we do everything in our power to achieve the 2° target or, indeed, the 1.5° goal. Peatlands are the biggest carbon store and continue to be burned. The Government’s ban includes only a third of upland peatland, allowing the rest to burn, so what are they doing to shut down the loophole that they created?

Alok Sharma: The net zero strategy is a coherent and comprehensive plan that has been welcomed by many people and by business. It is about emissions coming down and the creation of jobs. The hon. Lady will know that we have already published a peat strategy, which I would be happy to share with her.

Paul Howell: Does the COP26 President agree with me and the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods that sometimes the way to engage people is with things that matter to them, such as the cost of heating their house, as opposed to changing the green agenda every time? If we go for different agendas for people, we can get a lot more acceptance and buy-in.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is a champion for his Sedgefield constituency and is right to point out that we can bring about change in a number of ways, thereby not only reducing the cost of bills but helping to cut emissions. There is a role for us all to play.

Ed Miliband: With 10 days to go before COP, much is riding on the shoulders of the COP26 President and we wish him well, but to deliver the 1.5° target we have to cut emissions by 28 billion tonnes by 2030—a halving of global emissions. So far, the pledges made for Glasgow amount to 4 billion tonnes at most, so we are not yet where we want to be. Does the COP26 President agree that we need to be honest about the maths? If he does, what is his assessment of how much of the gap we can close at Glasgow to keep 1.5° alive?

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we have to ensure that we close the gap and halve emissions on the 2010 baseline by 2030. As I said in answer to an earlier question, so long as the commitments that have been made are followed through on, we are heading towards the 2° target, but clearly we need the G20 to come forward with its emissions reduction targets, and we will then need a consensus view on how we reach agreement for the next few years.

Ed Miliband: May I suggest to the COP26 President that the rest of the UK Government could make a difference, even in these final days, by not undermining his work? The Secretary of State for International Trade should not be giving big emitters a free pass by doing a deal with Australia that allows them to drop their temperature commitments; the Prime Minister should deliver on the promise made at the G7 to vaccinate the developing world by the end of 2022; and the Treasury should stop undermining the green transition at home and help to build the international coalition that we need by reversing the cut to overseas aid in the Budget. Does the COP26 President agree that acting on those suggestions would help him to deliver on his historic responsibility at the COP?

Alok Sharma: The whole Government are committed to our net zero strategy, which was published yesterday. It is about creating 440,000 jobs by 2030 and getting another £90 billion of inward investment, some of which we saw coming through at the global investment summit yesterday. The whole Government are committed to ensuring that we have success at COP26. The very fact that the Secretary of State for International Trade is sat next to me on the Front Bench shows her commitment to COP and to her work on adaptation.

Global Green Investment Bank

Andrea Leadsom: What steps he has taken to prioritise support for a global green investment bank in COP26 commitments.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I know that my right hon. Friend shares my view on the importance of unleashing investment for climate. Although a global green investment bank is not on the COP agenda itself, we are working with all levels of the global system—treasuries, regulators, multilateral development banks, central banks and markets—to mobilise private and public capital.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench on the net zero strategy that the Government published yesterday. Unlike Opposition Members, I see that a net zero strategy backed by business is the way to go. Taxpayers are not going to pay the full cost, and it is down to us all to be committed to that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that because the UK has such strengths in our financial services sector, we can, by promoting greater investment in renewable technologies around the world, promote not just decarbonisation but better jobs and economic growth for all our citizens and those in the developing world?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Wind and solar power are now cheaper than coal and gas across the majority of the world, and continuing to invest in those unabated fossil fuels is likely to create a risk of stranded assets. The opportunities for business investment into green technologies have never been better, with green, high-quality jobs across not only the UK, but all countries, as they also invest in their green technologies and those revolutions that drive the opportunity to boost global GDP by up to 2.4%.

Clean Energy: Safeguarding of Human Rights

Wendy Chamberlain: What steps he is taking to ensure that the safeguarding of human rights in the development of clean energy projects is considered at COP26.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The UK works with all countries to deliver ambitious action on climate change and ensure that human rights are placed at the forefront of our climate action. Under the UK’s COP presidency, we are bringing forward a declaration for donor countries to support the conditions for a just transition from high-carbon industries into quality, decent, new jobs.

Wendy Chamberlain: Human rights abuses, such as the treatment of the Uyghurs in China, are hugely relevant to COP. An investigation earlier this year found that 40% of UK solar firms were built using panels from firms linked to forced labour in Xinjiang, China. How does the COP26 President intend to approach the need to work together with countries such as China while also meeting our moral obligations in relation to these abuses?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The allegations are, of course, a cause for concern. Further detailed investigations are required to establish to what extent that forced labour is present in the solar supply chain. We are thoroughly investigating those allegations. On 12 January, we announced a series of measures to help ensure that no UK organisation is complicit in human rights violations or abuses taking place in Xinjiang, including strengthening the overseas business risk guidance to support businesses making the right choices.

COP26: Community Engagement

David Mundell: What recent steps he has taken to engage with communities in preparation for COP26.

Andrew Jones: What steps he is taking to consult with (a) civil society and (b) youth groups in preparation for COP26.

Alok Sharma: I have met a range of society and youth groups in every country that I have visited in my COP role. Alongside that, I co-chaired the COP26 civil society and youth advisory council. Last month, I attended the Youth4Climate: Driving Ambition conference to hear at first hand almost 400 youth climate activists representing 186 countries.

David Mundell: The big disappointment for me is the chaotic and shambolic way in which SNP-led Glasgow City Council has approached this major global event that is coming to Scotland. Can the President reassure me that, whatever the inadequacies of the council, it will not detract from the event or its ability in future  to positively reflect on communities in Glasgow and across Scotland?

Alok Sharma: We have had a good working relationship with delivery partners across the piece and it is very important that that continues. Obviously, my right hon. Friend has highlighted a number of local issues. If he wants to get in touch with me, I would be very happy to see what we can do to try to solve the problems.

Andrew Jones: Two weeks ago, I saw Harrogate High School, St Joseph’s primary school and Zero Carbon Harrogate promote their walk-to-school day. Talking to pupils, I found that their interest in environmental progress was very strong, so has my right hon. Friend shared the feedback on his consultations with other Government Departments to promote work such as sustainable transport both domestically and internationally?

Alok Sharma: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and, of course, Harrogate High School and Zero Carbon Harrogate for promoting sustainable travel initiatives. He will know that the COP unit is working very closely with other Government Departments to try to support business on sustainable transport initiatives. I want to give him one example: the Zero Emission Vehicles Transition Council is working with Ministers representing leading car markets across the world to accelerate the move to electric vehicles.

Alison Thewliss: As MP of the constituency where COP is taking place, I look forward to welcoming you all to Glasgow in the coming weeks. However, many businesses will be affected by COP and forced to close. They are finding it very difficult to get answers from the Cabinet Office on how much compensation they will be entitled to for the closure of their businesses. I would be grateful if the President could meet me to try to resolve some of these matters because businesses are very worried that they will lose out significantly as a result of COP coming to Glasgow.

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Lady will know, I have written to local Members of Parliament to tell them that businesses within the secure perimeter will be compensated for any loss of revenues. Of course, the number of people coming means that this is also going to be an opportunity for businesses across Glasgow to benefit, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the matter.

New Oil Wells: Surrey

Wera Hobhouse: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of proposals to put four new oil wells in Surrey on the UK’s (a) credibility and (b) negotiating position as President of COP26.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The 2019 decision of Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for four new bore holes is currently subject to a legal challenge, which will be heard by the Court of Appeal in November. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics, due to the ongoing litigation.

Wera Hobhouse: The International Energy Agency has warned that if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, the exploitation and development of new oil and gas fields must stop this year, yet there are currently proposals for multiple new exploratory oil developments  across the UK. With just 11 days to go until world leaders gather in Glasgow, how can the COP26 President justify these developments against the Government’s stated aim of keeping global warming to 1.5 °C?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I announced earlier this year in my former role, the Government will be introducing a climate compatibility checkpoint for any new licences issued, in order to assess whether any future licensing rounds remain in keeping with our climate goals. The checkpoint, which we have committed to launch by the end of this year, will be used to assess the climate compatibility of any future licensing rounds.

Climate Adaptation and Resilience

Karen Buck: What steps he is taking to ensure that progress is made on strengthening climate adaptation and resilience at COP26.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Supporting vulnerable communities around the world to adapt to climate impacts is a top priority for COP26. We are encouraging improved adaptation planning, integration of climate risk into decision making, and increased and more accessible adaptation of finance to deliver effective, inclusive adaptation, and loss and damage action on the ground.

Karen Buck: The most climate-vulnerable states need and demand more assistance from the developed world for climate transition and adaptation. This has the potential to derail COP26, so can the Minister tell us: what are the Government’s aims for increasing the level of support at Glasgow to help transition and adaptation in the poorest countries, and particularly whether it is the Government’s intention to lobby for that aid to be in the form of grants, rather than loans?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Travelling the world this year in the role that I have the great honour to hold—UK International Champion on Adaptation and Resilience—has, if nothing else, made it clear that the challenges for so many countries are often ones of access to finance. The COP unit and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have worked tirelessly all year to find better ways to ensure that access to finance, and to ensure that the $100 billion is committed by developed countries so that they have the finance they need to make those sorts of adaptive changes.

Matthew Pennycook: Success at COP depends in part on developed countries finally honouring that 2009 $100 billion promise, yet with just 12 days left there remains a staggering £14 billion shortfall and the German-Canadian delivery plan still has not materialised. Will the Minister therefore tell the House whether the Government agree that it is essential that the $100 billion commitment be met before delegates arrive in Glasgow, and whether she concedes that the UK is likely to have to reassess its own contribution in order that it is?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My right hon. Friend the COP President-designate has spent, and continues to spend, an enormous amount of time on ensuring that we can reach that $100 billion figure, which is a clear symbol of intent. He continues to have conversations  with the Germans this week, before we get there. This is a key focus for the team and all those who know that it is a terribly important marker to meet, and we want to ensure that it is able to reach those who need it most.

Nationally Determined Contribution Commitments

Philip Dunne: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of nationally determined contribution commitments published in September 2021 ahead of COP26.

Alok Sharma: Overall, the NDCs that have been put forward are not adequate, because by 30 July 78 countries had still not published updated NDCs. However, the 113 updated NDCs that had been submitted would lead to a reduction in emissions of 12% by 2030. If we also take into account the subset of 70 countries with updated NDCs and net zero commitments through long-term strategies, those would lead to a 26% reduction in emissions.

Philip Dunne: In the COP26 President’s discussions around nationally determined contributions, has he come across a single country other than the UK that has committed to count international aviation and maritime emissions in its net zero strategy?

Alok Sharma: My right hon. Friend is right. This is just another example of the UK leading on climate ambition. We remain fully committed to global action to tackle international aviation and shipping emissions through the international processes at the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation.

Topical Questions

Laura Trott: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: When the UK took on the COP26 presidency, less than 30% of the global economy was covered by a net zero target; that figure is now 80%. Under the UK’s G7 presidency, for the first time every G7 country has committed to ambitious near-term emission targets aligned with net zero by 2050. However, to keep 1.5 °C within reach, every nation, particularly the biggest emitters, has to step forward in what needs to be the decade of ambition.

Laura Trott: The Government are setting ambitious five-year carbon budgets and we have set out how we are going to meet those, but will the Minister consider setting interim targets to reassure my concerned constituents that we are on track?

Alok Sharma: The net zero strategy has committed to provide a public update every year from 2022 on progress against the delivery pathway to net zero set out in the strategy, and this will include an update on progress against the targets and ambitions that have been set out.

Jeff Smith: A third of people globally do not have access to a waste management service, and 90% of waste in lower-income countries ends up being either dumped or burned and causing emissions. Can the President confirm that waste management will feature on the agenda at COP26, and what plans are there to allocate climate finance for this problem?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Waste management is a critical part of helping us to reach net zero across the planet. I was very pleased to see in the Duke of Cambridge’s Earthshot prize awards on Sunday that the Indians had a really interesting solution to the problem that ensured they could reduce their waste management and not have to burn their crops.

Andrew Jones: Harrogate District Climate Change Coalition is staging its first climate action festival to coincide with COP26. It is full of events promoting ways that people can decarbonise their lives, with businesses, academics and community groups involved. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them on this excellent initiative and perhaps consider joining us for the second festival?

Alok Sharma: There is no festival better than a climate action festival. I congratulate Harrogate District Climate Change Coalition, which has brilliantly demonstrated that tackling climate change is an all-of-society endeavour bringing together business, civil society and government.

Karen Buck: Is it the COP President’s view that if the world is to be set on a 1.5 °C pathway, states will need to report on an annual basis rather than waiting until 2025, the next five-year reset?

Alok Sharma: That is part of the discussion that needs to take place, but it is also vital that we reach agreement on the transparency framework at COP26 so that we know that the commitments being made are actually delivered on.

David Warburton: Reaching net zero is not a commitment that can be reached by the Government alone; the private sector needs to play its part in achieving a shared commitment. A third of FTSE 100 companies have committed to net zero, but more businesses must work with Government to decarbonise our economy. In his presidency of COP26, will my right hon. Friend highlight the importance of more companies committing to net zero and show the world that when it comes to climate change this Government mean business?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Business action is critical if the Government are to achieve the goal of reaching net zero by 2050. That is why, since the COP President-designate took on the role, he has been actively calling for business to join the race to zero—a UN-backed campaign supported by the UK Government. It requires businesses to take robust short-term action to halve global emissions by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible. There are now 4,470 companies that have signed up to Race to Zero.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Secretary of State for International Trade for her visit earlier this year to the European Marine Energy Centre in Stromness, when she heard that it has a very compelling case for the next round of contract for difference auctions to have a pot within a pot for tidal stream generation. We are disappointed that the first draft does not include the pot within a   pot, so will she and the President of COP26 renew their representations to the Treasury for its inclusion so that we can take advantage of the opportunities?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: It was a wonderful visit and I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the community for welcoming me so heartily. All these new technologies will help us meet net zero, not just in the UK but across the world. We want to continue to see investment in them. I know that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) will continue to champion these issues.

Sheryll Murray: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, I have spoken to many fishermen who are small businesses in their own right. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with those who fish about potential environmental agreements?

Alok Sharma: Reaffirmed by our 25-year environmental plan and our fisheries White Paper, the Government are committed to sustainable fishing and the principle of maximum sustainable yield. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are also committed to helping industry to reduce the adverse impacts on the marine environment and to adapt to climate change.

Darren Jones: Only 13 of the G20 nations have committed to net zero by law. Does the COP President expect all G20 nations to commit to net zero by law at COP26?

Alok Sharma: I would like every country to step forward with a net zero target. When we started, it was 30% of the world economy; it is now 80%. Of course, we also need those nationally determined contributions to come forward before COP.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to questions to the Prime Minister, I point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Rachael Maskell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 October.

Boris Johnson: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, in addition to my duties in this House. I shall have further such meetings later today.

Rachael Maskell: David Amess and James Brokenshire were both tragically taken from us. Both served this place with integrity and served their constituents well. As we offer our heartfelt love and prayers to their families, their families have offered us a new path to a new politics, built on kindness and love.
Sarah Everard and Claudia Lawrence were both from York. Right now, women are feeling unsafe—many women are unsafe—and the very people who should be protecting us are telling us to engage with potential  perpetrators to identify them, to flag down a bus or to know the laws of arrest better. That has taken a toll on confidence in the police. As women, we are confident and determined to change that, so that every girl and every woman can live at home without fear, can go to school or work without harassment, can go online without objectification and can walk our streets safely again. What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that women with lived experience can lead on this work, and by when?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her question. She raises a most important issue—one of the most important issues that this country faces. I want all people in this country, particularly women, to feel confident in our police force, and I believe that they can and should. What we are doing now, to ensure that women in particular feel safe at night, is investing in safer streets, better street lighting and more CCTV, but as I think the whole House understands, what we must also do is deal with the systemic problems in the criminal justice system. We must ensure that men—I am afraid it is almost always men—get prosecuted for rape and for crimes of serious sexual and domestic violence in the way that they should, that we secure the convictions that we should, and that when we secure those convictions, those individuals get the tough sentencing they deserve. That is what this side of the House believes in.

Luke Hall: Having a prematurely born child in neonatal intensive care means that for families, every day can be a struggle —practically, financially and emotionally. Trying to continue with life as normal while racked with worry and a guilt that simply never leaves you is just not possible. That is why the Prime Minister’s commitment to deliver neonatal leave and pay for parents in that situation is so important. Will he meet me to discuss how quickly we can put that through Parliament so that parents get this support as quickly as possible?

Boris Johnson: I will make sure that my hon. Friend has the relevant meeting as fast as we can organise it. I know that many parents, particularly those who have premature and sick babies, feel that the current system is not working well for them. That is why, I can tell my hon. Friend, we will legislate to allow parents of children in neonatal care to take extended leave. Details of the policy were published last year and we will bring forward the legislation as soon as possible.

Keir Starmer: Can I pay tribute to Ernie Ross, a formidable campaigner who served this place and his constituents with great distinction for three decades? I will pay my respects and tribute to James Brokenshire immediately after Prime Minister’s questions.
I thank the whole House for the way the tributes to Sir David were handled on Monday. We saw the best  of this House, and I want to see if we can use that collaborative spirit to make progress on one of the issues that was raised on Monday: tackling violent extremism. It is three years since the Government promised an online safety Bill, but it is not yet before the House. Meanwhile, the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever with dangerous algorithms on Facebook and Instagram. Hope not Hate has shown me an example of violent Islamism and far-right propaganda  on TikTok. What I was shown has been reported to the moderators but it stayed online because, apparently, it did not contravene the guidelines. I have to say, I find that hard to believe.
Will the Prime Minister build on the desire shown by this House on Monday to get things done and commit to bring forward the Second Reading of the online safety Bill by the end of this calendar year? If he does, we will support it.

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the spirit in which he has approached this issue. I echo what he says about the need for co-operation across the House, because the safety of MPs—indeed, of all public servants and everybody who engages with the public—is of vital importance. The online safety Bill is of huge importance and is one of the most important tools in our armoury. What we are doing is ensuring that we crack down on companies that promote illegal and dangerous content, and we will be toughening up those provisions.
What we will also do is ensure that the online safety Bill completes its stages in the House before Christmas—or rather, that we bring it forward before Christmas in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I am delighted that he is offering his support and we look forward to that.

Keir Starmer: I think from that—this is not a challenge; it is to clarify—that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be finished in early December and the Second Reading could be before the end of this calendar year. We do need to get on with it.
Telegram has been described as the “app of choice” for extremists. If you can believe it, Mr Speaker, as we were paying tribute to Sir David on Monday—as we were paying our respects—Telegram users were able to access videos of murders and violent threats against politicians, the LGBT community, women and Jews. Some of those posts are illegal; all of them are harmful. Hope not Hate and the Board of Deputies have said that Telegram
“has facilitated and nurtured a subculture that cheerleads for…terrorists”.
Tough sanctions are clearly needed, yet under the Government’s current proposals, directors of platforms failing to crack down on extremism would still not face criminal sanctions. Why is that?

Boris Johnson: This Government have brought forward an online harms Bill and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard what I have said about the Second Reading before Christmas. In the collegiate spirit in which he began his questioning, I can tell him that we will continue to look at ways in which we can toughen up those provisions and come down hard on those who irresponsibly allow dangerous and extremist content to permeate the internet. I am delighted that he is taking this new tough line and I very much hope that he will get the rest of his party to join him in the Lobby with us.

Keir Starmer: I did start in a collegiate spirit, and I will continue in a collegiate spirit, because I listened hard to what was being said on the Government Benches on Monday about the concerns about this issue. We need to recognise the measures in the Bill, but we need  tough and effective sanctions—that means criminal sanctions—and that does matter. It is, frankly, beyond belief that, as the Mirror reported yesterday, 40 hours of hateful content from Anjem Choudary could be easily accessed online. The Prime Minister and the Government could stop this by making it clear that directors of companies are criminally liable for failing to tackle this type of material on their sites. We do not need to delay, so in the collaborative spirit we saw in this House on Monday, will the Prime Minister commit to taking this away, looking at it again and working with all of us to strengthen his proposed legislation?

Boris Johnson: I have already said that we are willing to look at anything to strengthen the legislation. I have said that we are willing to bring it forward, and we will bring it forward to Second Reading before Christmas. Yes, of course we will have criminal sanctions with tough sentences for those who are responsible for allowing this foul content to permeate the internet, but what we hope for also is that, no matter how tough the proposals we produce, the Opposition will support it.

Keir Starmer: We are making progress. We have the Second Reading committed to before Christmas—that is a good thing—and I think the Prime Minister has now committed to criminal sanctions. At the moment, they are a fallback position at the discretion of the Minister. They should, in my view, be on the face of the Bill as the automatic default for the failure to act. If we are making progress on that, then we are beginning to address some of the issues that were identified across the House on Monday.
I turn now to the report of the commission for countering extremism, which was set up in the wake of the horrific Manchester bombings. Eight months ago, that commission made recommendations to plug gaps in existing legislation and strategy—gaps that extremists have been able to exploit and are continuing to exploit—yet Sir Mark Rowley, formerly head of our counter-terrorism policing, who led on those recommendations, said just this week:
“I have had no feedback from the Home Office on their plans in relation to our report on the absence of a coherent legal framework to tackle hateful extremism”.
Given the seriousness of the matter and the clear need for action, why have the Government not responded to this important work? Will the Prime Minister now commit to act swiftly on the commission’s recommendations?

Boris Johnson: The Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary work with all parties to tackle violent extremism. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism and counter-extremism systems in the world, as a consequence of which we have foiled 31 terrorist plots since 2017. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Mark Rowley, with whom I worked extremely closely while I was in London, and all those who were involved in foiling those terrorist plots. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that they will receive the complete support of this House and of this Government; nor will we allow those who are convicted to be released early from prison, because that was one of the most important things  that this Government passed and which the Labour party opposed.

Keir Starmer: Really, after the week we have just had, I do not want to descend to that kind of knockabout. [Interruption.] Either we take this seriously—I am taking my lead from what those on the Government Benches were saying on Monday about the need to tackle this—and go forward together, or we do a disservice to those we pay tributes to.
There are clearly problems with the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. Internet users are increasingly likely to come across extremist content online. The Government’s own independent reviewer has said that there is “no evidence” that the Government’s key deradicalisation programme is effective—that is the Government’s independent reviewer saying that—and we have seen a spate of lone-attack killings, with the perpetrator invariably radicalised online. We all, across this House, want to stop this, but at the moment things are getting worse not better, so what urgent plans does the Prime Minister have to fix these glaring problems?

Boris Johnson: I am all in favour of a collegiate and co-operative approach, in which case I think it would be a fine thing if the Opposition would withdraw their opposition to our measures to stop the early release of serious extremists and violent offenders. That is all I am trying to say, in a collegiate approach, and I am sure that that is what the people of this country would wish to see. But we will continue to do everything that we can to strengthen our counter-terrorism operation and to support all those who are involved in keeping us safe. Obviously, it is too early to draw any particular conclusions from the appalling killing of our colleague, but we will draw all relevant conclusions from that investigation.

Keir Starmer: The inescapable desire of this House on Monday finally to clamp down on the extremism, hate and abuse that festers online is incredibly welcome. However, closing down anonymous accounts would not have prevented the murder of Jo Cox or of PC Keith Palmer and, although we do not know the full circumstances surrounding his death, neither would it have saved Sir David. If we are to get serious about stopping violent attacks, we must stop online spaces being safe spaces for terrorists. We must ensure that unaccountable and arrogant social media companies take responsibility for their platforms. We must end the delays, get on with the legislation, and clean out the cesspit once and for all.
I have prosecuted terrorists and I have prosecuted extremists. I have worked with Sir Mark and others. Dozens of Labour MPs have worked hard on tackling social media companies on these issues. I started collegiately, and I will continue collegiately: we know what it takes, and we can help. Will the Prime Minister now capture the spirit that we have seen this week, and agree to work with us on a cross-party basis so that we can tackle violent extremism, and its enablers, together?

Boris Johnson: I am delighted to join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in committing to tackle online harms and violent extremism together, and that is what the Government are doing. That is why we brought forward the online harms Bill, and that is why we are investing record sums in counter-terrorism. In addition, I think what the whole country and the whole  House would certainly want to see—and I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a collegiate spirit—is a commitment by the Labour party in future to support measures, and not to allow the early release of terrorists and those convicted of such offences from prison. If we hear that from the Labour party, I think it would be a fine thing.

Crispin Blunt: Knowing my right hon. Friend’s commitment to UK bioscience, and his understanding of the exciting potential for improving mental health treatments for conditions such as depression, trauma and addiction, will he cut through the current barriers to research into psilocybin and similar compounds, so that the British public can receive, and British science research and British pharmaceutical companies can enable, potential treatments for those most debilitating conditions to be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who I know has a very active interest in this area. We will consider recent advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on reducing barriers to research with controlled drugs, such as the one he describes, and we will be getting back to him as soon as possible.

Ian Blackford: May I join the Leader of the Opposition in sending condolences to the family of Ernie Ross?
In 11 short days, world leaders will gather in Glasgow for COP26. This is our best chance, and very likely our last chance, to confront the climate emergency faced by our planet. That is why it was such a devastating blow that, on the eve of COP26, the UK Government rejected the Scottish cluster bid to gain track 1 status for carbon capture and storage. Today, The Press and Journal, has said that there is
“no valid reason and no acceptable excuse”
for that decision, and it has called for an immediate U-turn on that colossal mistake. We know that the decision was not made on technical or logical grounds; this devastating decision was purely political. Scotland’s north-east was promised that investment in 2014, but it is a promise that has been broken time and again. Will the Prime Minister finally live up to those promises, or are they simply not worth the Tory election leaflets they are written on?

Boris Johnson: We remain absolutely committed to helping industrial clusters to decarbonise across the whole country, of course including Scotland. I know that there was disappointment about the Acorn bid in Aberdeen. That is why it has been selected as a reserve cluster. There can be no more vivid testimony to this Government’s commitment to Scotland, or indeed to fighting climate change, than the fact that the whole world is about to come to Scotland to look at what Scotland is doing to help tackle climate change. I congratulate the people of Scotland on their efforts.

Ian Blackford: People across Scotland are looking for answers today, and they are getting none. All they see is yet another Tory broken promise. It is bad enough that this UK Government are holding back carbon capture in Scotland, but they are proving an active barrier to  renewable energy opportunities across the board. Tidal stream energy has the potential to generate 20% of UK generation capacity—exactly the same as nuclear. All the industry needs is a ringfenced budget of £71 million, a drop in the ocean compared with the £23 billion that this Government are throwing at the nuclear plant at Hinkley. But the UK Government are failing to give that support, threatening shovel-ready projects such as MeyGen in the north of Scotland. At the very least, Prime Minister, stand up today and guarantee a ringfenced budget for tidal stream energy and save that renewable industry from being lost overseas.

Boris Johnson: Actually, do you know what, Mr Speaker? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on raising tidal energy. He is absolutely right. I have seen the amazing projects that are under way. I think the House will acknowledge that we are putting huge sums into clean, green energy generation. The right hon. Gentleman is far too gloomy about the prospects of Acorn in Aberdeen. I think he needs to be seized with an unaccustomed spirit of optimism, because the Acorn project still has strong potential, and that is why it has been selected as a reserve cluster. He should keep hope alive rather than spreading gloom in the way that he does.

Anthony Mangnall: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—the new quiet man of British politics.  Long may it continue.
The weekend before last, I went to sea with the Brixham trawlers. Brixham fish market is now turning over £1.4 million a week. It is looking forward to its share of the levelling-up fund, but it is also looking forward to the previously announced £100 million fisheries and seafood scheme. When will we see pillars 2 and 3 launched, and will the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to our coastal communities and our fishing sector?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing for fishing, for coastal communities and for Brixham in particular. I understand that the fish market in Brixham was outstandingly successful the other day. We are going to make sure that we continue to support fishing and the seafood business across the country. The scheme has approved funding in Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth, and a further £100 million is being made available through the UK seafood fund to support our fisheries.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd.
If COP26 is to be successful, people must be at the heart of our net zero emissions strategy. For too long, the UK economy has left too many people behind, with wealth and investment hoarded in the south-east of England. Devolving powers over the Crown Estate would bring half a billion pounds-worth of offshore wind and tidal stream potential—assets, of course, currently controlled by Westminster—under Welsh control. Scotland, meanwhile, already has those powers. Will the Prime Minister support my Bill to devolve the management of the Crown Estate to Wales?

Boris Johnson: As the right hon. Lady already knows, the Crown Estate works closely with the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales. I am sorry to have to tell her that my view is that the devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales would fragment the market, complicate existing processes and make it more difficult for Wales, as well as the whole UK, to move forward to net zero.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Delivering new homes is key to levelling up, as is putting that power in the hands of local people and making sure we build the right number in the right places. However, my constituents, especially in Thievesdale and Ordsall, are concerned about over-intensive developments in our local plan. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the minimum housing requirement for Bassetlaw is 4,896, not the 10,000 claimed by the Labour-run council?

Boris Johnson: Well, Mr Speaker, I am not surprised to say that my hon. Friend is completely right. This Government are determined to give the people of this country the homes they need. We are building record numbers of homes, but we owe it to our kinder, gentler politics to be accurate about what is going on in our constituencies. This Government do not set local housing targets. I understand that the draft Bassetlaw local plan is subject to consultation. I encourage him and his constituents to make their views known.

Kirsten Oswald: Tomorrow, at 2.50 pm, my constituency will fall silent as we mark exactly 50 years since Scotland’s largest peacetime explosion ripped through Clarkston Toll in East Renfrewshire. Ten shops were demolished by the ignition of gas, which had escaped from a fractured gas main beneath the shops. A passing bus was caught up in the blast. Twenty-two people died, mostly women, and over 100 were injured. Tomorrow, 50 years on, the community and the families will come together for a memorial service. Will the Prime Minister join me in acknowledging the terrible losses that many families locally suffered and the continuing sorrow in the community, and in reflecting that the victims of the Clarkston disaster must never be forgotten?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this anniversary. She is right to commemorate the victims of the Clarkston disaster. Our thoughts and our condolences continue to be with the families of those who lost loved ones. Of course, we must do everything in our power to make sure that no such tragedy is repeated.

Mary Robinson: The failings of Greater Manchester police, which have  led to it being placed in special measures, are well documented, including the failure to record 80,000 crimes, including domestic violence and sexual offences, in a single year. It is particularly important that the force addresses what the recent  investigation called its
“culture of denial…and secrecy”.
After the horrific murder of Sarah Everard, it is crucial that we tackle the cover-up culture. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister therefore join me in calling for Greater Manchester police to urgently review its internal culture? Will he also consider reforming the law  on whistleblowing, so that people in Greater Manchester police and other organisations can speak up against wrongdoing in confidence?

Boris Johnson: Yes. It is vital that people should have the confidence to speak up against wrongdoing wherever they find it, particularly, of course, in the police. I believe that the people of Greater Manchester deserve better. I support and agree with what my hon. Friend says.
I will just say one thing. It is the responsibility of the Mayor of Greater Manchester to ensure that the police force acts—not a point that will be taken up on the Labour Benches—swiftly and decisively to address the failures that his constituents are currently finding.

Virendra Sharma: I join colleagues in paying tribute to the former hon. Member for Southend West. He was a good friend and an esteemed parliamentarian. I also wish to pay tribute to the former right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. He served this House and the country assiduously, and will be missed by Members across the House.
Heating bills, food shops and fuel costs are all rising at a staggering speed. This winter, millions of families on universal credit will be forced to choose between eating and heating. Given the crisis in living costs we are now facing, will the Prime Minister reconsider his scrapping of the universal credit uplift and reinstate the £20 a week lifeline he has just taken away?

Boris Johnson: What we are doing is ensuring that we keep the costs of heating down with the price cap. We have increased the warm homes allowance by £150 for 780,000 homes. We have just given local councils another half a billion pounds to help poorer families over the winter. The most important thing that is happening in this country is that wages are going up. There is a huge jobs boom now, thanks to the policies that this Government have pursued.

Bob Blackman: I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that homeless people should be assisted and not arrested. The review of the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 has now been concluded. Does he agree with me, therefore, that it is now time that the amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which are being considered in the other place, should be adopted so that we can consign the Vagrancy Act to the history books forever and give the police the powers that they need to combat trespass, aggressive begging and other antisocial behaviour?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a passionate campaigner on this issue and he has done a lot of good things in this area. No one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live, and I think the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy Act—and also to redouble our efforts to fight homelessness, as I think we have done successfully over the pandemic but must continue to do.

Colleen Fletcher: University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust has dealt with more than 600 attacks on staff during the pandemic. To deter further attacks,  staff in the hospital’s A&E department are now wearing body cameras. It simply is not right that doctors and nurses should have to go to such lengths just to feel safe at work. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning those abhorrent attacks and say what immediate steps he will take to better protect our NHS heroes as they go about their work, treating patients and saving lives?

Boris Johnson: I join the hon. Lady absolutely in condemning attacks on all public servants and particularly on NHS staff, who are trying to save people and help people in their lives. What we are doing—what we have already done—is to toughen the sentences for those who assault or harass public servants.

Shailesh Vara: Given the recent tragic circumstances, there has inevitably been a focus on the security of Members and their staff. One aspect that is often overlooked is the fact that it is our staff who are on the frontline in receiving the  abusive emails and correspondence, and they take the hostile phone calls. They are private citizens, simply trying to earn a living, put food on the table and pay for their rent or their mortgage, yet they are caught up in this vicious cycle of venom and abuse that is directed towards us. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to acknowledge the fantastic work that our staff do and give them the credit that they so rightly deserve?

Boris Johnson: I think that my hon. Friend spoke there for the entire House of Commons, because we all know that it is our staff, our caseworkers and our office managers who are so often in the frontline, who have to deal with anger, with intemperate behaviour and with abuse, and they cope with it magnificently. We all know the risks that they run in their daily lives and, indeed, we have seen how some House of Commons staff have paid for their sacrifice even with their lives. I thoroughly echo, support and concur with what my hon. Friend said.

Speaker's Statement

James Brokenshire

Lindsay Hoyle: I said on Monday that the House would have an opportunity to pay tribute to and remember our friend and colleague, James Brokenshire. I would like to do so by inviting Members to join me in a minute’s silence in memory of James. Can we all please stand?
The House observed a one-minute silence.

Lindsay Hoyle: James was a politician who commanded affection and respect from colleagues, no matter which party they represented. In a parliamentary career spanning 16 years, James’s contribution to public life was immense. He served in successive Governments in ministerial roles across the Home Office, as well as serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and later as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. His commitment to serving his constituents in Old Bexley and Sidcup was also obvious to anybody who knew him.
I will always remember James for his positivity, for his good sense of humour and for being one of the most friendly, thoughtful and well-liked people in the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] His passing is a profound loss to us all. Our thoughts go out to his wife Cathy and their three children, who are here today to watch our tributes; I just want to remind people that the family are with us. It is great that they have turned up today—thank you.
We will now take points of order. The Prime Minister will start the tributes.

Boris Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will join me and you in expressing our deep sorrow over the tragically early death of James Brokenshire and in sending our heartfelt condolences to his wife Cathy and their three children Sophie, Jemma and Ben, who are with us today, for the loss of a beloved husband and father. The many tributes paid to James are a testament to the affection, respect and esteem with which he is remembered and to his skill as an able and effective politician who served his country under three Prime Ministers in some of the most sensitive and demanding positions in government.
I worked closely with James for the first time when I was Mayor of London and he was the hon. Member for Hornchurch and then for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I saw how much he cared for the interests of his constituents, always taking the time to stop and talk to people and listen to what they had to say. He was unflappable, earnest and sincere, and he brought those same down-to-earth qualities into other areas of his life—being photographed baking cakes in his kitchen or starting a Twitter frenzy on the vital question of whether he owned two ovens or four. Once, when challenged by an interviewer to choose between Southend and the south of France, his reply was swift:
“Southend. I’m an Essex boy and proud of my roots.”
He would be delighted to know that his birthplace has now achieved city status in tribute to his friend Sir David Amess, whose campaign he supported.
It was James’s diligence, composure and experience as a lawyer, steeped in the art of negotiating last-minute deals, that proved so valuable to the Government. He held five ministerial jobs, including two in Cabinet as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and every one of them was fraught with traps for the unwary and opportunities for error. The fact that he improved his reputation in each post shows that we have lost an astute politician of rare ability.
James served with particular distinction in the Home Office as security and immigration Minister, where he was fondly known by civil servants as JB: “Oh good,” they would say, “we’ve got JB on this one.” He often reflected that to work at the Home Office was to be on the receiving end of incessant incoming fire from the media. It usually fell to him to brave the barrage when things got really sticky, so it is no wonder that on his last day officials presented James with an authentic military-grade tin hat.
During that tumultuous period, which I remember well, James helped to keep our country safe. He oversaw the superb security operation that protected the London Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012; he was central to getting rid of Abu Qatada, sending him packing after more than a decade of legal wrangles; and he steered the groundbreaking Modern Slavery Bill through Parliament, giving the police and law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to combat some of the most dangerous and repellent criminals of all. Through all this, he would help individuals in need, and that included taking the time to meet people with direct experience of Government decisions. It was after a conversation with a homeless man in Bristol that he acted to strengthen the rights of tenants and give them a greater sense of security in their homes. We can only imagine how much more good he would have done if he had been given the chance.
James was in the prime of life, with a huge amount still to offer his country, and it was the cruellest of fates that he, a non-smoker, should have been struck down by lung cancer. His tenacious fight showed the depths of his courage and his character. As colleagues will remember, after his first bout with the disease he was back in this House within weeks, serving in Government and helping his constituents. He campaigned for better lung cancer screening, becoming the first Member to secure a debate on this issue in the House. He sought to dispel the stigma and misperceptions surrounding the disease, and when he fell sick again earlier this year, even in the midst of his ordeal he summoned the strength to record a video message encouraging others to seek help and early treatment. Every member of this House willed him then to pull through, but sadly it was not to be.
James was a gentleman politician, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) will allow me to quote her words:
“Politics and parliament would be the better if there were more people of his calibre involved and politics and parliament are the weaker for his loss.”
I could not agree more. James’s absence will be sorely felt in this House, in the great Departments where he served, and by all the people whose lives he touched.

Keir Starmer: One of the first things I learned when I arrived in the House was that there are not many glamorous roles in opposition. No one gives you a guidebook on how to do these jobs; you are appointed, and off you go. Of course you can ask older, wiser heads, and you can appoint excellent staff, but generally you are on your own. There is one little-known exception to that rule—a secret in Westminster—and it is this: when you shadow a Government Minister of such decency and courtesy, and with such a sense of fair play that they reach out across the divide and provide helpful pointers, you are not on your own. And so it was for me. When, as a new MP in 2015, I was appointed as shadow Immigration Minister, I shadowed James Brokenshire.
I have to admit that I was unprepared for the vagaries of the Bill Committee rules—even years in the criminal justice system had not prepared me for the complexities of those arcane processes—but in one of my first outings in a Bill Committee, I almost missed my cue to make my argument. Now, some would see that as a blessing, but James was far too decent for that. He would not take advantage. He went out of his way to ensure not only that I was heard, but that I was heard with respect, and that was the characteristic—that was the character—that was James. From that day in 2015, we forged a friendship which lasted until his untimely death. On these Benches, my story is not an unusual one. Anyone who got to know James, who worked with him or against him, ended up respecting him and liking him and willing him to pull through.
At the time I got to know James, he was widely seen as an upcoming star of this House. As the Prime Minister has said, he had already played a key role in the creation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and had begun to carve out a reputation as an unassuming but very effective Minister. He was a party leader’s dream: happy to roll up his sleeves and do the tough jobs with little regard for self-promotion. However, advancing your career in any walk of life is not just about hard work and talent, although James had those in abundance; it is about who you are, and it was little surprise when James got a full role in the Cabinet, first as Northern Ireland Secretary and then as Communities Secretary. He brought his calm and understated manner, his effectiveness and his respect for others to both roles, and he will be long remembered for that.
When someone is taken as young as James was, by a cruel disease like cancer, there is an inevitable sense that they were robbed of fulfilling their potential, and James was. He had achieved so much, but I strongly believe—we all strongly believe—that he had so much more to give. Characteristically, right to the end he was campaigning to remove the stigma from lung cancer in order to improve the lives of others—a cause I hope this House continues to champion in his memory.
James’s wife and young family are with us here today, and we send them our condolences. If I may say so, they should be very proud of their husband and father. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They should know that across this House on all these Benches he commanded enormous respect and goodwill. Among his constituents, he was very well liked. He was a friend to many of us   across the House, including me. Our politics is poorer without him. We will miss him, but we will all ensure that his memory lives on.

Peter Bottomley: On 30 April 2018, Mr Speaker said:
“It sounds as though mealtimes chez Brokenshire were enormous fun.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 6.]
That was when James said that he used to discuss local government with his father when his father was the chief executive in the borough that I then served. In that debate, James used seven words to describe his father, saying that he had a sense of
“focus and dedication as a public servant.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 10.]
James learned that lesson. He also said that private leaseholders should not have the costs of fire remediation passed on to them. In order to fulfil his dedication as Housing Minister, I invite the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to discuss how that can be fulfilled, because at the moment those costs are being passed on to those leaseholders.

Ian Blackford: I think we all share the real sense of sadness that, in the space of two days, we are meeting again to pay tribute to another deceased colleague. Two colleagues taken in very different circumstances, but both taken well before their time. James Brokenshire was a young man who clearly had so much more to give. That is what must be so tragic for his colleagues and friends on the Government benches, and we are all conscious of and compassionate to the pain they must be feeling this week. But most especially, we think of James’s young family. The thoughts and prayers of all on the Scottish National party Benches are with his wife Catherine, his son Ben and his daughters Sophie and Jemma. It is important to mark the manner in which the family have dealt with their grief, because I know they have been deeply involved in remarkable fundraising efforts since James’s untimely death. The spirit the family have shown since his death is no doubt a tribute to the way in which James himself dealt with his illness. All of us across this House looked on with deep admiration and awe at the sheer bravery he showed while bravely battling against the cancer that, sadly, ultimately took his life.
My own experience and engagement with James was mainly when he was a Home Office Minister. When he was Immigration Minister, I remember dealing with James in some detail on a particular case concerning a family in the highlands who were being threatened with deportation. I am glad to say that, after some considerable effort from all involved, the family eventually got the resolution they desperately needed.
I know from colleagues in Northern Ireland that, although his time there came during a politically delicate and difficult period, he remained on very good terms with all the parties during his period as Secretary of State. It is fair to say that that, in itself, is no mean feat for any British Secretary of State who serves there. I can only think it was because of the way he approached people and the way he approached his work.
It has been very rightly said that he was not a man who was interested in the insubstantial distractions of politics. He quietly got on with his job. He was, above  all else, diligent and determined. The mark of the man, and our memory of him, will be of a dedicated Minister, a loyal friend and a dedicated father. James battled to the very end against his cancer. Now that his battle is over, may he rest in peace. God bless you, James.

Theresa May: I had the enormous privilege of working with James Brokenshire in government, first for six years in the Home Office and then in his roles as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and as Communities Secretary. James was a remarkable man, an outstanding Minister, a great constituency Member of Parliament and a true friend.
Words have been used by others such as “diligent” and “hard-working,” and he was both of those. As a Minister, he was assiduous in dealing with the briefs he read, thoughtful in his consideration of the issues and careful in his decision making, which is what you want from a Government Minister. He gave his time and effort because he understood the importance of the decisions he was making. He cared about people and he cared about the work he was doing, and that came through in all the decisions he made and in the way in which he reached out across this House to ensure those decisions were the right ones.
James was an outstanding Minister, but he was also a very good constituency MP. Very often if you try to contact a Minister on a Friday, they are in their office. More often than not, James was in his constituency. He understood that all of us are here because our constituents have placed us here, and anybody who is fortunate enough to become a Government Minister is only there because their constituents have placed them there. We should never forget that that is the basis of our being here and of our responsibilities.
James was a true friend. If, from what I and others have said, you get the impression that he was just a hard-working workaholic, I can say that James was great fun. Evenings with Cathy and James were evenings of fun and laughter. He was also a loving family man. I remember when he was first diagnosed with his lung cancer and he was stepping down from the Government. His first thought to me was about the impact it would have on Cathy and the family. He was a loving family man, he was out there in his constituency and he gave dedicated public service to this country.
The Government are the poorer for his loss, this Parliament is the poorer for his loss and our country is the poorer for his loss.

John Cryer: James and I must have first met in 2003, when he was selected as the Conservative candidate for Hornchurch and I was the sitting MP. In 2005, James won and I lost. It is sometimes quite easy to be bitter and angry when you lose, but I could not be bitter and angry at James because he was such a nice bloke. He was so helpful. In the run-up to that campaign, during it and afterwards, I cannot remember ever having harsh words with James, never mind falling out with him. That is what I will always carry with me about him.
Since then, James and I always kept in touch. Obviously we both ended up in Parliament together, so we ended up working together. We always had a very pleasant  relationship, and we always got on very well. I saw him quite recently, as most of us did. It was a few months ago, when he thought he had beaten the illness. Sadly, he had not beaten it.
As the former Prime Minister just said, this place is much the poorer for James’s loss, so is the country and, although it may be none of my business, so I suspect is the Conservative party.

Karen Bradley: I rise to make two points, about James and the work he did and about James as a friend.
I followed James in two ministerial positions. I took over from him as Minister with responsibility for modern slavery when he became the Minister for security and immigration, and then I followed him into the Northern Ireland Office. His were very big shoes to fill. Goodness me, the way that officials talked about him: “JB will do it, JB will sort it, JB has this organised.” It was quite overwhelming at times to follow in those footsteps and to see the work he had done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) summed it up. James was diligent, he was careful in his decision making and he was thoughtful. He always remembered that people were affected by the decisions he was taking. He never took decisions in the abstract. He always thought about the people who would be directly affected.
I had to cover for James for a couple of weeks when he was Immigration Minister—I covered his role while he had a medical procedure—and, typical James, he made sure it was during a recess so that he did not take any time away from this place. I was astonished when one red box arrived for me and then two red boxes arrived with James’s work. Every single day, James was getting through at least double the workload that anybody else in the Department was covering, and he read every single one of those letters, particularly the letters about immigration. He dealt with them all personally, and he thought carefully about what he was doing to try to make sure that the people affected were helped.
In Northern Ireland, James Brokenshire should be the person who is remembered as the architect of the agreement that got Stormont back in January 2020. If not for James’s diligent work, Stormont would not be sitting now. He achieved so much, and I know from the messages I have received from people across Northern Ireland how warmly he was regarded there.
James was my friend. He had a great sense of humour. We keep hearing that he was nice. He was so much more than nice; goodness me, his sense of humour was wicked at times. He was so easy to talk to, but he also had judgment. He could give advice and wise counsel. We were both at his 50th birthday party, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it was a wonderful occasion. His family put on the most marvellous tribute, and we all learned so much about James and his life.
I will miss him so very much, and I am so grateful to have been allowed to speak in this debate.

Abena Oppong-Asare: James was my constituency neighbour. I remember on election night, when I had just been elected, James came  over to congratulate me and to introduce himself. While he was introducing himself, I remember thinking, “I know exactly who you are.” That just goes to show the humble person he was, never taking it for granted. We discussed having a catch up in Parliament when I had settled into my role, but due to the pandemic and his falling ill again, we did not get round to it and I am very sad about that.
I recently went to Bexley civic parade, my first in my role as an MP, and it was the first big event we had after the lockdown restrictions eased. I was walking alongside the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), and I am sure he will agree that James’s absence was clearly felt. Although it was nice to be there with the right hon. Gentleman, it was oh so sad that James was not able to take part. It was then that the seriousness of his illness began to sink in with me.
Since James’s death, I have spoken to many community groups, individuals and Labour activists from his constituency, and they have had nothing but nice words to say. Anashua Davies said that James would often be seen on a packed commuter train. She remembers asking him to support her in the campaign for a second referendum, and he was never dismissive. He was always open to a bit of light ribbing from Labour activists on issues on which they disagreed. I know my Labour activists, and I know what she said is true, that he was a true gent.
Claire and her dad said that James supported many events with the Irish community. Teresa Gray said he supported the food banks when they first started in Bexley. Dave Tingle, who stood against James, told me that he went out of his way to help him when he had a fire in his house. The mayor of Bexley, Dave Easton, on behalf of staff at Bexley Council, said that James was a wonderful individual, totally dedicated to his residents—a man of utter integrity, who cared so much about Bexley. Daniel Francis and Grant Blowers both told me that James reached out to them when their wives had cancer. That was typical of James’s character: he was always inquiring about and offering support to others, even as he had his own battle with cancer. No matter where you were on the political spectrum, James represented everyone in Old Bexley and Sidcup. To James’s family, let me say: I hope you take comfort in knowing what high regard he was held in, in Bexley and beyond.

Robert Buckland: It is with mixed feelings that I address the House today: feelings of pride in having known my dear friend James Brokenshire, and feelings of deep sadness that he is not here in his rightful place to carry on the outstanding work that he did for his constituency, for my party and for our country. James and I share a birth year, 1968—I like to think it was a very fine vintage indeed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) rightly said, at his 50th birthday party, we were able to share really happy memories and positive thoughts about a life that had been well and fully lived. At that point, unbeknown to us, his friends—his family knew about the diagnosis—it was a life about to take a dramatic turn for James. The last three years have been   challenging and tough for Cathy and the family, but they have also been positive in terms of what James achieved for research into and the profile of the disease of lung cancer. As we speak today, the Roy Castle Lung Foundation will already be richer to the tune of more than £50,000 because of the tribute page that has been set up in James’s memory by Cathy and the family.
I would advise all Members to look at the tributes on that page. I want to read out one, which is from an anonymous donor. This person clearly was an official who knew James well. He said this:
“I have not worked with anyone finer. A man of true integrity, always entirely across his brief, fiercely intelligent and incredibly kind. He was respectful to his officials, as well as rigorous in his questioning of and the testing of policy and legal positions presented to him. He was fantastic at distilling complex information into articulate and clear responses in Parliament. I had nothing but respect and admiration for how he did his job and his dedication to public service.”
Amen to that.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) mentioned Bill Committees. At one point, we thought that James was about to gather the record for the number of Bill Committees he conducted as a Minister. Indeed, in the particular Committee that the right hon. and learned Gentleman remembers, I was the other Minister sparring with him. We were lawyers together, but it was done with not just the respect for process, but a thought as to the outcome. James was rigorously focused on the outcome: what solution could we bring to the problem and what benefit could we bring to the wider country?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said, the word “nice” just does not cut it for James. Let me give the House the adjectives I would associate with my friend: driven, quick, persuasive, funny, kind and decent. Don’t make the mistake of confusing those qualities with mere niceness; he was much, much more than that. Farewell, my friend. Thank you for everything.

Eleanor Laing: There is so much that we can all say and want to say about James, and I would like to try to give everybody who wishes to speak the chance to do so. So although we want to say so much, can we please try to say it as briefly as possible?

Ian Paisley Jnr: In the midst of life, we are in death. Here we have no continuing city. Those prophetic words tell us something of the suddenness of the passing of our colleague and friend, a much missed Member of this House. It teaches us that this is for real, there are no dress rehearsals, and we have got to live this life and live it well. Your colleague and your friend, and our colleague and our friend, lived his life well, he lived it dynamically and in a manner that was upright and noticed by those around him. The words “decent”, “honourable”, “kind” and “helpful” have all already been used today in this House and will remain as a true reminder of our colleague.
It is my honour to pay tribute to James Brokenshire on behalf of my colleagues here on the Ulster Benches. James was a well-respected Secretary of State. He was an unknown quantity when he first arrived, but, with  due respect to the others who followed, he was much missed when he had gone. He was indeed a man who had genuine qualities that were reflected in the way in which he took decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. His many years of service in Parliament are marked by service to the people of not only Great Britain, but all of the United Kingdom, which of course includes Northern Ireland. So we salute that memory, with honour and, I hope, with dignity. To his beloved wife Cathy and to his lovely children, we extend our sincere condolences, and we hope that they find some rainbow of hope over the deep valley of tears that they have wept.

Liam Fox: It bears repeating that James was a charming, kind, funny and intelligent man, devoted to his constituency, his country and, above all, his family. He was joy to work with, collegiate and considerate, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. Those of us who had the pleasure of travelling abroad with him will also know that, occasionally, as we would have said in Scotland, some drink might have been taken. In an era when we have come to question the conduct of some in our political life, he was courteous and good-humoured to a fault, at the Dispatch Box and beyond. I hope it is not going too far to say that James was self-effacing, humble and without ego, almost to the point that one might wonder what he was doing in this place to begin with.
James wanted something good to come from the illness that he suffered and with which he coped with such dignity and courage. There is an urgent need for lung cancer screening in this country to improve long-term survival and save lives. As the Prime Minister said, James was the first to hold a debate on the topic in the House of Commons, after returning to work following his initial diagnosis and treatment. Cathy and the rest of the family wanted to support a cause that he cared so passionately about. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) has said, the Roy Castle Lung Foundation, of which, I am pleased to say, my wife is the medical director, has benefited by more than £50,000 because of the work that James did.
As we have seen with James, lung cancer is a disease that can affect anyone, young and old, male and female, smoker and non-smoker. Lung cancer is the UK’s most common cause of cancer. It is responsible for more than a fifth of all male and female cancer deaths. Approximately 48,000 people are diagnosed in the UK every year. When James passed away, on Thursday 7 October, another 95 people will have died on the same day of the same disease. It is sobering to think that one person dies of lung cancer every 15 minutes. James wanted me to give the message that less than a fifth of people with lung cancer are currently diagnosed at stage 1, and two thirds are not diagnosed until they reach stage 3 or stage 4. Symptoms are vague and can often be missed. We therefore need to find a way to get ahead of the disease that claimed James’ life all too early. We need a lung cancer screening programme, and I urge the Government to treat this with priority in our health policy. We cannot bring James back, but we can ensure that others live because of his legacy.

Clive Efford: I rise to underline what has been said about how James was liked across the House. He was my parliamentary neighbour across the borough boundary between Bexley and my constituency next door in Greenwich, and we got to know each other when he moved to Old Bexley and Sidcup from Hornchurch in the middle part of his career in this House, if I can put it that way. I also faced him across the Committee floor when he was a Home Office Minister and I was a shadow Home Office Minister, and I got to know him a bit better then. One thing that I learned about James was that if you were going to face him across the Dispatch Box in the Chamber or in Committee, you had to be well-informed, because he certainly was. He did his job diligently, he was extraordinarily talented, and he was a convivial and decent opponent. I would just like to say to his family that I send them my deepest sympathies. They have lost a wonderful person and an extremely talented politician, and my heart goes out to them.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and our colleague, James Brokenshire, who, very sadly, as we have heard, lost his courageous battle against lung cancer only two weeks ago. To lose one colleague is a tragedy, but to lose two in two weeks is almost too much to bear.
There is so much that I wanted to share with this House about my experiences with James. Much will be and has been said about James the politician, but I want to talk about James, my friend—the James I met some 45 years ago at Staples Road County Primary School. We grew up in the same area of Epping Forest. We joined the local Conservative association. We fought local elections together, either as candidates, helping each other, or when helping others to get elected. We supported the fantastic Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that she—you, Madam Deputy Speaker—was elected in 1997 and retained her seat at every election since. You must feel this loss as keenly as many of us here, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is unfortunate that you are not able to express that. James and I worked together to support Robin Squire in his attempt to regain his Hornchurch seat in 2001. That seat eventually sent James to this place in 2005, and that inspired me to find a seat that I could win.
James was the embodiment of all that is good. He was decent, honest and faithful. He demonstrated integrity and good humour in everything and was respected by all. Now, we have to say goodbye. Goodbye to James, taken from us all, especially from Cathy, Sophie, Jemma and Ben, all too cruelly and all too untimely. I send my deepest regrets and sympathies to them. As we have heard, as a tribute to James, Cathy has set up a muchloved.com page, and when I last checked well over £50,000 had been raised in memory of James and in support of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. I am sure we all agree that that is a fitting tribute, and I encourage people to visit that site—as Bob Geldof once said, “Give us your money”—because it will make a difference. But I look for the Government to do more. As we have seen throughout the pandemic, our UK  science base is capable of extraordinary achievements at breakneck speed, when required. Now, as we move past the pandemic, it would be a fitting use of our science superpower status to lead the world in finding better treatments and cures for this cruel disease.
I could share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so many occasions on which James and I shared good times together, whether over a glass of wine at our Wasters Wine Club or just out on the campaign trail, but I fear that time is my enemy, so I will simply say: James, I will miss you greatly. Please, rest in peace, and, by the grace of God, rise in glory. Goodbye, my friend.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything that he has just said. I am going to break the rules for one second to say that they were my boys—James and his friends in Epping Forest—when I was the new MP 25 years ago. They worked for the cause in which we all believed and I watched James grow from being a Young Conservative to being a Member of Parliament, to being a Minister, to being a Cabinet Minister, with great pride. Now, we will watch James and Cathy’s children follow in his footsteps. He was and always will be so proud of them, as we all are of James as our friend. He will be so greatly missed and never, ever forgotten.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to you for breaking the rules occasionally, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to add one adjective to the list that has been provided, and that is the word magnanimous. I think you could see, in every single moment of any engagement that you ever had with James, even if you were completely and utterly disagreeing with every single word in his sentence, paragraph or speech, that there was magnanimity in the way in which he dealt with you and in the way he dealt with everybody in this House. I can imagine it was exactly the same in his constituency.
I will let the House in on a secret, which is that there is something of a cancer survivors club here. I always hoped that James would always be in that club. He was magnificent with me when I had my cancer a few years ago, and I know that many others had exactly the same experience. Cancer is a bugger: you think it has gone away and then it comes back. You had no idea that it was there and suddenly find that you have stage 3 or stage 4 cancer. That is particularly true, as the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, in relation to lung cancer. You think to yourself, “Why didn’t I spot it earlier?” So it is not just sadness and fear that you and your family are surrounded with; it is anger, guilt and all sorts of complicated feelings. I am sure that for many of those in the House who have had cancer there will be a sense of guilt that some of us are still here and James is not.
What does that leave us with? A simple feeling that we must—we must—devote ourselves, especially after this year of covid, to making sure that early detection is possible for everybody and for all the different cancers, and there are so many different kinds. It would be helpful if Mr Speaker could circulate the details of the  memorial website so that we might all be able to contribute and a bit more money goes back into cancer care. We need to get a lot of the cancer trials back up and running. We need to make sure that people are not frightened of going to the doctor, that they get seen and that all the backlog is dealt with.
My final thought is this. I do not know whether Members have ever read Thomas Hardy’s book “The Woodlanders”, but at the end Giles Winterborne has died, and the woman who has always loved him addresses him directly and says:
“I never can forget’ee; for you was a good man, and did good things!”

David Evennett: I would like to pay my tribute to my friend and parliamentary neighbour, James Brokenshire. He was a hard-working, efficient and effective Minister, and a strong champion for his constituents in Old Bexley and Sidcup.
During the past decade, I have been privileged to really get to know James and to work closely with him on so many issues and campaigns on behalf of our borough of Bexley. He was serious in his work, but he had a great sense of humour, which we experienced at many Bexley social occasions. We will miss him at all such future occasions.
James was a devoted husband and father. I pay special tribute to his wife Cathy, who gave such great support to James in so many ways over so many years. We are grateful to you, Cathy, and the family, for all that you have done in Bexley while James was a Member of Parliament.
James was a devout Christian and a man of honour and integrity who will be sorely missed locally and in Parliament. Our country has lost a great public servant, and in Bexley we have lost a real friend and an excellent Member of Parliament. We thank you, James, for all that you have done. We will always remember you with pride, love and affection, aware of all your commitments to causes that we must continue to support and develop in memory of a great man.

David Davis: I first became a friend of James when he joined the shadow Home Office team about a decade and a half ago. It was a time of huge controversy and, as Members can imagine, it was a heavy-duty team. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and Dominic Grieve were members. There were four future Cabinet members in that team.
I thought that this incredibly self-effacing and amazingly modest man—certainly given our profession—would take a bit of time to get up to speed, but not a bit of it. In no time at all, he had a reputation as a safe pair of hands. That may sound terribly mundane, but it is not; it is a curse, because it attracts every hospital pass there is. You have seen how it works. I get in for the morning meeting and say, “Right, this is difficult. Give it to James.” “Oh, this one’s a nightmare. James will manage it.” “This one’s impossible, but James can do it.” That is how it worked.
Of course it became leitmotif of James’s career. Every job that he was given was both impossible and thankless: Minister of State for Security and Immigration under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—what the hell?; Northern Ireland Minister dealing with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and co. and getting on with all of them; and, more seriously, taking on the Department of Communities and Local Government after Grenfell Tower. These he took and did. He did the impossible: he went into the ruck and came out the other side without a hair out of place—that is of course allowing for his haircut.
That was the James that we knew and loved. Our nation needs people like James. My right hon. Friend, the former Prime Minister, was right: we need people like James. When the unimportant flash and crackle of politics is gone, the nation depends on those like James who do their jobs brilliantly but quietly. James served this nation with great honour, total integrity and enormous skill and he will be sorely missed by all.

Chris Grayling: I just want to say two things. First, to James’s family, we do not get occasions like this in the Commons very often. There are not many of us who could command this kind of collective tribute from across the House, and that says that this was a very special man indeed.
Secondly, during the past few months, James dealt with his illness with incredible bravery. If you spoke to him, it was just like a normal conversation with James. It was like the world was just carrying on, and yet, behind all of that, he was carrying the most incredible burden and he did so with decency and bravery beyond anything almost anybody could have done, and that is an enormous tribute to him. We have lost, I have lost, this House has lost and this country has lost a great man, but, for me, I have lost a great friend.

Gareth Bacon: I could spend a very long time talking about James Brokenshire. I knew him for the best part of a decade and a half. Indeed, for the past 11 and half years he served as my local Member of Parliament in Old Bexley and Sidcup, but James to me was so much more than that. He was a dedicated and exceptional public servant, but he was also a very loyal friend. Above all, James was a family man and my heart goes out to Cathy, to Sophie, to Jemma and to Ben.
The courage with which James faced up to his illness and the determination with which he fought it, his refusal to feel self-pity and his steadfast determination to remain positive really was the mark of the man. He was taken from us far too soon. His constituents and his country have lost a great public servant, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) has said, and we have lost a much-valued colleague. I will miss him terribly, but I will always be grateful for the privilege of having known him and the honour to be able to call him my friend. James, rest in peace.

Meg Hillier: I, too, have more to say than I have time for. Others have talked about James’s ministerial career.  I first met James when we were elected together in 2005, and when I became a Minister in the Home Office, he was my shadow. As others have said, you always had to be on your mettle, because you knew that he would be on the case. I often reflected on the fact that, when the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Home Secretary, she was very lucky to have James in that post. I did notice that his portfolio seemed to grow in that Department, but every tricky area of the Home Office—having been a Home Office Minister I know all of those tricky areas—came to James because, in all the best traditions of this place, he was an assiduous and proper Minister. In a period when we have a lot of fracture in our politics and in society, and in an era when being a YouTuber or a celebrity is seen as something very important, James did the job really well and really properly. That is often underplayed, but it is really important. All of us, whether we are in government or we aspire to be in government, should use James and the work that he did as a model for how to do the job.
The last point I want to make is about his courage. When he was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government post-Grenfell, he gave a ministerial direction to set up a £200 million fund to provide money to deal with some of the dangerous cladding. Many Ministers do not want to give ministerial directions—that is when they have to instruct officials that they are going to spend taxpayers’ money—and he did not do so lightly; he thought it through. I remember him saying to me in a conversation that, in one case, there were about 89 owners of a block, and if he had not made this decision, it would have got caught up forever and the people living in those homes would have suffered. There is still unfinished business there, as the Father of the House has said, but James set the tone and made a bold decision. He was courageous, he was good and we will miss him in this House.

Damian Green: As we have heard, James was a model of what we would want our MP, our Minister, and, most of all, our friend to be. I first met James in the shadow Home Affairs team before the 2010 election and then as junior Ministers in the Home Office for four years, and he was the perfect colleague. Many was the evening we spent giving each other mutual support not just because of the pressures of the job, but because of the added pressures of working for an exceptionally demanding Home Secretary. He was diligent, thoughtful, collegiate, and an absolute team player. To revive an old cliché: he was absolutely a man whom you would go into the jungle with—he would have your back.
All these tributes to his political effectiveness are not just standard conventional remarks to make on an occasion like this. We can simply look at the facts. James was appointed and reappointed to a succession of really difficult ministerial jobs by all three Prime Ministers since 2010. Almost no one else has negotiated those particular rapids as successfully as James has. In paying tribute to him, of course we mourn with Cathy and the children, but we should also celebrate James’s political legacy, because, above all, he showed that it was possible to be a completely admirable human being and a successful Member of Parliament, and, in these times, that is a great and important memory to leave all of us.

David Mundell: It is an honour to contribute to this debate. So much has already been said about James. I regard it as a huge honour to have been a friend and to have seen him as a friend. High office is actually a very lonely place, as many people around this Chamber will know, and the ability to be able to speak to someone openly and not to think that that will appear on the front page of tomorrow’s paper or to be part of online speculation about yourself or colleagues is hard to find. When I was a Cabinet member, a Minister and a shadow Minister, James was someone I always felt I could speak to in total confidence: somebody who would give support, in a way that was for my benefit, not for any benefit to him; somebody who would be candid; and, as we have heard, somebody who would be funny about it as well, because you can be nice and be very funny too, with a wicked sense of humour. I am very grateful for the support that he gave me when I was a Minister.
I was also struck by James’s self-effacing nature. As we started this discussion, I looked at the last exchange of messages that I had with him about his situation, and it was his thanks to me for my concern. It was the fact that all of us had given him so much love and support over the period that he was so grateful for; he wanted to convey that and said it had sustained him in some of the most difficult times.
The final point I want to make is that I was actually with Sir David Amess in Qatar when we heard the news of James’s passing. David really was very upset by that news and was effusive in his tributes to James. I am sure that if he had been in the Chamber today, he would have wanted to make such a contribution. As we heard earlier, social media is not the friendliest place, but there is a great picture that was put up on Twitter, which shows Sir David in this Parliament, advocating the case for Southend as a city, with James sitting over his shoulder, laughing. That is the picture that I would  like to retain in my mind of those two great parliamentarians—great men, who have contributed so much to our national life.

Greg Clark: The House has paid tribute to James’s kindness and his courage in facing his illness, but I would like to underline his effectiveness as a Minister and the consequences of that for ordinary people who perhaps are not aware of the impact. When he was Northern Ireland Secretary, the Bombardier aerospace company was facing a ruinous trade dispute with Boeing, which, had James not immediately sprang to life and activated the very considerable networks of influence and friends of Northern Ireland in Washington, would have been the end of that employer in Northern Ireland. As a result, against all expectations, the dispute was settled in favour of Bombardier, and many thousands of people owe their continued livelihoods to James’s brilliant advocacy.
It was fitting that James became Local Government Secretary because, as the Father of the House said, his father Peter had been the chief executive of Epping Forest District Council before he was the chief executive of the London Borough of Greenwich. James was widely admired, not just by his officials in the Department   —although, as my right hon. Friends have said, that was universal—but by councillors of all parties, up and down the country. In fact, his permanent secretary, Melanie Dawes, described him as
“a dedicated, brilliant and kind man”.
I think she spoke for all of local government.
I last met James in July. Our daughters were classmates at school and we last met at the speech day, which was our daughters’ leaving day at that school, so my last image of James is a happy one: celebrating the wonderful success of his daughter; seeing her move on to the next stage of her life; having succeeded in raising a wonderful young woman. He will be greatly missed by his family and by this whole House.

Jeremy Wright: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and Mr Speaker for allowing time for us to make these tributes to James—tributes that he would never have expected and which he deserves all the more for that.
Some of the tributes to James that I have heard have said that he took his work seriously but never took himself too seriously. That is true, but I think it should also be said that he was taken seriously—by those he worked with, by those in every area he had responsibility for as a Minister and by all those he sought to help. That matters, because if you want to get things done in politics and in Government, people have to believe that you care enough to want to help, that you have the capacity to help, and that you will put enough effort into helping to be effective. No one who dealt with James was in any doubt on any of those counts: they knew how much he cared; they knew he was capable; and they knew he was committed. That was true in every one of the difficult areas that he dealt with as a Minister and in every case brought to him as a constituency Member of Parliament.
I will remember for a long time the weekend that the Wrights went to visit the Brokenshires at Hillsborough Castle, when James was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the course of that visit, I was struck by how James, who had not been in the job long at that point, was widely recognised and warmly welcomed at all the community events, which, James being James, he was keen that we all went to during that weekend. That included, I recall, a gathering of the llama farmers of Northern Ireland, of whom I think there were about four. James went, as always, to take an interest, not just to take a photograph.
When we contemplate the two empty spaces on these Benches this week, we think about underrated qualities in politics. James had in abundance those qualities that perhaps the parliamentary sketch writers are not terrible interested in, but which are fundamental to meaningful public service. He was intelligent, brave, determined, compassionate and wise. There was no Cabinet meeting that I attended with him and no Cabinet that he was a member of that was not immeasurably strengthened by his presence.
Of course, his family will miss him most. Cathy, Sophie, Jemma, Ben—you know that you have our love and prayers as you mourn him and as you are unfailingly proud of him, as so many of us are too. For the many of us who will think of him first and foremost as our  friend, we will remember him that way, but all of us should remember the example he set of how to be a public servant, and strive to follow it.

Mike Penning: As Essex boys, James and I got on like a house on fire when we were both elected in 2005. Interestingly enough, as we became Ministers together, we shared Departments. I have listened very carefully to the fact that James got all the difficult bits and the Policing Minister didn’t—some of that was news to me!
When we were both shadow Ministers, we used to drive home together and we would chew the cud about many things as new Members of Parliament. James was a wonderful human being and he was a family man. We invariably talked about family things on the way home. I knew that I would have to move my daughters out of their school in Southend to my new constituency in Hemel Hempstead, and he talked to me about how difficult that was going to be for me.
I apologise to Cathy: we sat outside your house many a time when I was dropping him off, and he did not come in quite as soon as he should have done because we talked about other things as well, particularly his haircut. For those who did not know James in his early days here, he had a wonderful flat-top—and how carefully it was trimmed. We used to spend hours talking about it! People may think that men do not talk about that sort of thing, but we did. We talked about our kids and life in general, as well as the greasy pole.
When James went to Northern Ireland, he said, “You’ve been there, Mike. Can I take some advice from you?”. We have heard so much in this House about people taking advice from James, but he was a sponge; he wanted to listen to other people’s experiences, whether in the constituency or as former Ministers. He continued up that greasy pole while some firemen, like myself, disappeared down it, but he was absolutely brilliant at putting his arm around you when you needed that five minutes.
I phoned James a couple of weeks before his sad death, and we chatted about the usual banter and bits and bobs. I apologised for phoning him because it was obvious how poorly he was at that time, but he said, “Nah, it’s all right, mate. We’re Essex boys together; we can have a chat.” That was James, and I am so proud to have known him for so long.

Eleanor Laing: The last word goes to Stephen Hammond.

Stephen Hammond: It is a particular privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have the last word in these tributes to our friend and colleague. Like the last three of my colleagues who spoke, he and I were members of that very exclusive club, the 3-05 club—we were elected on 05/05/05. It was very clear to all of us in that intake that our friend James Brokenshire was going to rise to high ministerial office. On that, I do not need to say any more—my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and many others have paid tribute to his effectiveness as a Minister.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) rightly said that James was so much more than a nice man; he used a whole load of adjectives to describe him. The three I will remember, like most of the 3-05, is that he was collegiate, compassionate and charming. He congratulated all of us on our way up and put his arm round us and gave us sympathy on the way down—and I needed that more than most. I send my sincere condolences to the family.
Next week, on Tuesday evening, that exclusive club, a year late, celebrates 15 years in this House. The most fitting tribute we can pay to our friend and colleague is that there will be an empty chair and a toast raised. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Eleanor Laing: Thank you all for the moving tributes to our friend James.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Rosie Winterton: Before I call Harriet Harman to ask her urgent question, I wish to remind all Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that no reference should be made to cases in which legal proceedings are active, which includes those where an individual has been charged with an offence. I would also ask Members to exercise caution in discussing matters that are subject to current police investigations. I call Harriet Harman.

Harriet Harman: (Urgent Question)  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like, first off, to endorse the heartfelt tributes that have been made to James Brokenshire and send my deepest sympathy to his family.
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question—

Rosie Winterton: You ask the urgent question first.

Harriet Harman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on sexual misconduct in the Metropolitan police and in the police generally.

Kit Malthouse: Abuse of position for sexual purpose by a police officer is abhorrent, betraying the trust of victims from a position of power. The Government are working closely with the National Police Chiefs Council and other policing stakeholders as part of a new national working group to implement the right strategies, policies and products to help forces to tackle those officers abusing their positions for sexual purposes. In February last year, the Government strengthened the powers of the independent police watchdog, the Independent Office of Police Conduct. Now all allegations of abuse of position for sexual purpose must, by law, be referred to the IOPC. For the first time, the Home Office will also now be able to collect and publish data on issues of internal sexual misconduct by officers, and we aim to publish the first tranche of data in the new year.
But we are determined to go further. The heinous murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer shook our country to the core. I know that the thoughts of everyone in this House will remain with Sarah’s family. The public are in urgent need of reassurance; so too are the vast majority of police officers who serve with courage and professionalism and who rely on all their colleagues to uphold their values. This is why the Government are launching a two-part independent inquiry. The first part will examine the recruitment and employment of Sarah’s killer and whether there were opportunities to have intercepted him along the way. I would expect the second part to look at a range of relevant issues, from policing culture to whether enough is being done to identify and report patterns of behaviour of those individuals who could go on to abuse their policing powers. We will appoint the chair of the inquiry shortly and then agree terms of reference. The Home Secretary will, at that point, provide the House with an update. We have also asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake an urgent inspection of forces  to look at their vetting and counter-corruption arrangements, as well as focusing on how well forces can identify unacceptable behaviour.
We recognise that sexual violence is a broader issue in society and we must leave no stone unturned in confronting it. The Prime Minister will therefore launch a taskforce to drive cross-Government action and to help maintain public confidence in policing and our many thousands of outstanding police officers. The police have a unique and vital role in our society and we rightly expect them to meet high standards of behaviour and professionalism. Across Government and policing, we must continue working ceaselessly to protect the precious bond of trust between officers and the public.

Harriet Harman: I thank the Minister for his statement and the work he and his colleagues are doing on this.
Wayne Couzens used his Metropolitan police warrant card, his Metropolitan police handcuffs and his police powers to kidnap and kill Sarah Everard. Since the full horror of this was made public at the sentencing hearing, there has been an outpouring about the failure of the police to deal with misogyny and sexism within the force. Women need to be able to trust the police, not fear them. That means that we need to be certain that allegations of sexism and misogyny result in immediate suspension—not just removal from the frontline but immediate suspension from the police—that findings of sexual misconduct lead to instant dismissal, that vetting and training is sorted urgently, and that if you are in a WhatsApp group that deals in sexual violence and misogyny you should not be in the police. The official inquiries that the Minister mentioned are under way are welcome, but even before those inquiries report, these basic issues should be tackled now.
We need firm leadership from the police—from the top of the police—in recognising that big change is needed, and a determination not to stand in the way of that change but to make it happen. I know the Home Secretary agrees with us on that. I do not believe that will happen under the current Metropolitan police commissioner, who should, I believe, step down so that this vital change can happen and happen now.

Kit Malthouse: Of course we all agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Member. This kind of behaviour has no place in British policing. She is right that we need to pay constant attention to the processes and products that policing has so that we can root out this behaviour and deal with it once and for all. She will know that the office of constable is a sacred and special one within our society, and certainly within our legal system. We must do all we can to protect its integrity, but at the same time recognise that even constables are owed due process, and that where complaints are made, we must have a robust system around those complaints and detecting abhorrent behaviour. Where that abhorrent behaviour is detected, the system must enable us to examine the behaviour, give a fair hearing, and then deal with those officers accordingly.
The right hon. and learned Member will know that there has been significant work in this area over the past few years following a report by the inspectorate back in 2019 that looked at the specific issue. The National Police Chiefs Council has, as I say, set up a working group in which the Home Office participates to try to  strengthen these routes. The inspectorate reported then that excellent progress has been made but there was still much more to do, not least in the detection and internal reporting of these matters. I am hopeful that the inquiry, when it completes, will give us the tools we need and the work processes to pursue to enable us to make sure that the net is ever tighter in maintaining the integrity of British policing.

Maria Miller: We know that sexual abuse in our schools, our universities and our colleges is endemic. It is part of the culture that too many people still grow up with in our country, so little wonder it continues on into the workplace, including the police force. We have to change that culture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the police, and indeed all employers, should stop using non-disclosure agreements to cover up allegations of unlawful behaviour at work, including sexual misconduct, and that anonymity should never be granted to protect the identity of police officers who are found guilty of sexual misconduct?

Kit Malthouse: I applaud the sentiments behind my right hon. Friend’s work in this area. NDAs are profoundly to be avoided. I cannot, I have to say, envisage the circumstances in which they would be used in policing, not least because, as I said earlier, following changes in the law, offences of this type have to be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Decisions are therefore taken independently in terms of the investigation and the proposed sanction. The disciplinary structure around police constables, which then follows those allegations or charges, is an independent one, run by an independent panel and with an independent qualified chair who makes decisions about disclosure or otherwise regarding the case. I cannot see that an NDA would necessarily be applicable in those circumstances, but she is right to point out that they are deeply undesirable.

Sarah Jones: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I add my voice to the tributes we heard earlier to James Brokenshire. I worked with him, and always found him to be charming, committed and thoughtful.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for tabling this urgent question. The killings of Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and others have shone a light on the epidemic of violence against women and girls. Zoë Billingham, from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, defined this epidemic in her recent report. She said:
“The problem is known, consistent and deep-rooted in its presence, and growing in the forms it takes.”
We cannot hope to tackle violence against women and girls unless we can be sure that those who are here to protect us will not turn on us. Every police officer I have spoken to since Sarah’s murder has said the same: they, more than anyone, want to root out any opportunity for perpetrators to join our police service, and they want to ensure that the culture and climate in every force enables victims to have the confidence to come forward.
To rebuild the trust and confidence of women and girls in police, there must be a comprehensive, independent inquiry on a statutory footing. The Minister said that the public are in urgent need of reassurance, and that is  absolutely correct, but a non-statutory inquiry cannot act in the same way as a statutory one. It cannot compel witnesses to testify, it cannot demand documents and the evidence it hears will not be under oath, and we do not believe that is good enough. It is clear that we need to look at the whole system: the vetting process, the misconduct process, working cultures, misogyny and sexism within the police force and training processes. This could be a watershed moment, and it must not be left to women and girls to make this happen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) asked this week, when will the Home Secretary implement the recommendations of Zoë Billingham’s report? When will the Government reform and invest in our police force, our criminal justice system and wider public services so that we are ready to start tackling this epidemic? For women and girls everywhere, and for our police officers who are devastated at the betrayal of everything they stand for, things cannot remain as they are. We would work with the Government, and thank them for it, if they took this moment to bring profound change.

Kit Malthouse: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. On her substantive point about the inquiry, she will know that a statutory inquiry is a very long-winded affair to set up, and a non-statutory inquiry can be much quicker. She will also be aware that it is contrary to regulations, since a change in the law recently, for a police officer not to co-operate with such an inquiry, whether statutory or otherwise, and they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings if they did not co-operate. Having said that, if the chair of the inquiry feels that he or she is not getting the co-operation or the information they need, we have reserved the right to convert the inquiry into a statutory one.
The hon. Lady is right that the inquiry forms part of a suite of tools that we need to restore and enhance the confidence particularly of women and girls in our police forces. One of those processes is what we are seeing with the uplift programme, which is essentially a greater feminisation of UK policing. We have moved over the past 10 years from 25% of the force being female to just over a third, and we have a number of forces where more than half of new recruits are female. I am hopeful that that progress will mean that women and girls feel that the police force better reflects them and may result in better contemplation of these issues.

Simon Hoare: I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that any barrel can have a rotten apple. Most of our police are law-abiding, honest folk going about their job, protecting us properly. I know also that he will agree that this is not just an issue for the Metropolitan police, but is something affecting the whole police family and the nation’s confidence in policing in our country. Can he assure me on two things? First, can he assure me that the widest part of the culture of the police understands that because they are there to enforce the law, that means they are not beyond it? Secondly, can he ensure that when a police officer changes to another force, they are vetted as if from scratch, rather than just for specific serious tasks, usually involving the carrying of a weapon? When people move too quickly between constabularies, as in any other job, it usually should ring alarm bells.

Kit Malthouse: On my hon. Friend’s second point, these are exactly the issues we want to learn from as part of the inquiry. He is right that we need to ensure that the vetting net is as tight as possible. He will know that police officers are vetted at a number of points during their careers, and often on transfer, as he says. We need to ensure that that is happening and has happened. If there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them. He is right that this is not necessarily a problem just for the police in one particular area or for the police as a whole; it is one that we have to face as a society generally. I have to reassure him that some of the strongest advocates for change, some of the individuals most outraged by previous events and some of those most committed to maintaining the integrity of the police force are police officers themselves.

Angela Crawley: May I associate myself with the comments of others across the House and pass on my condolences to James’s family?
The murder of Sarah Everard has truly shocked and saddened us all, and I once again send my condolences to Sarah’s friends and family. We on these Benches welcome the independent inquiry and the announcement of a taskforce, but more details must be given on exactly what will be put in place. The statutory inquiry must be put in place.
I recognise that this issue is not solely confined to the Met. As recent inquiries and news have shown in Scotland, there is a real problem and a culture that pervades establishments. The Scottish Government are taking this seriously and will take any concerns or issues raised seriously and ensure that those responsible are held to account.
Dame Elish Angiolini referred in her report to “a canteen culture” and
“racist, misogynistic or emotionally damaging”
conduct. While good policing will not end male violence against women, trust in the police is vital, yet over the past 11 years, more than 750 Met police officers and staff have had accusations of sexual misconduct, including accusations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape and using their position of power for sexual gain. Of those 750, only 83 were sacked. Does the Minister feel that those figures reflect sufficient accountability and, if not, what action is needed to address that?

Kit Malthouse: I obviously cannot speak to the individual cases that the hon. Lady has outlined, but like most of the British public, I need to have faith in the independent structures that are put in place. All offences of that type must by law be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and all disciplinary proceedings within the police force are dealt with by independent panels chaired by legally qualified chairs. That is the due process that produces these numbers.
We hope that the work we are doing through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the reforms that we have put in place around the IOPC and the lessons that will then come out of the inquiry will form a suite of information and tools that will help to bolster the faith that the vast majority of the British people have in the vast majority of police officers. As I say, our job is to help the police to rebuild that bond of trust, whether in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and we will do our best to stand alongside them.

Laura Farris: A recent freedom of information request showed that more than 600 members of the police had been the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct since 2018. Most worryingly, nearly 10% of those had left the force before the disciplinary proceedings had concluded. In the public’s mind, that will raise a real worry that those people who do not have a black mark on their disciplinary record could rejoin an alternative force at a later date. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that those who are accused cannot leave the force and then rejoin?

Kit Malthouse: We brought about reforms in the law to produce a police barred list, which is there precisely to stop police officers who are convicted of offences or disciplinary matters from rejoining the police. My hon. Friend raises a good issue that, in theory, when a police officer rejoins the police, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred to, that should come up on their vetting report. As part of our inquiries, we will have to make sure that the processes are in place to detect exactly the kind of information that she is looking for. As I say, following this dreadful event—the killing of Sarah Everard— our job is to make sure that the vetting net is as tight as possible and those are exactly the sorts of areas that we will need to explore.

Yvette Cooper: The Minister and the police forces have rightly talked about the importance of rebuilding trust. When serious allegations are made against police officers about sexual assault or domestic abuse—offences that, by their very nature, involve controlling behaviour, the abuse of power, the abuse of vulnerable victims and misogyny—why are they not suspended immediately while investigations take place?

Kit Malthouse: The Chair of the Select Committee is right that such offences or allegations need to be dealt with swiftly and robustly, but she will understand that the decision to suspend a police officer primarily lies with the chief constable, for important reasons. Obviously, we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make sure that we have a consistent approach to those kinds of offences across all police forces, but that is definitely a matter that falls into the area of operational independence, so the policy is decided on a force-by-force basis, albeit that the College of Policing issues guidelines. Given her long history in the area, I know that she will recognise the importance of a chief constable taking responsibility primarily for the suspension or otherwise of the officers in that force.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The truth of the matter is that sexual violence against women is too common and, as a consequence, it shows up in our police service. A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke at the Conservative party conference about the need for a broken windows theory of tackling crime. Against that background, what thoughts does the Minister have about applying that principle to the whole area of sexual violence? The simple fact is, if we let low-level sexual banter escalate, that is exactly what we end up with. Is it not incumbent on the whole of society to make every bit of sexually aggressive behaviour towards women and girls totally socially unacceptable?

Kit Malthouse: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that we can put in place all the structures and processes that we like but, unless there is a significant change in the culture, such practices will often go undetected. There is, however, a strong movement in British policing now to deal with the issue. For example, a large number of male officers are involved in the HeForShe campaign within the Metropolitan police, led by the deputy commissioner himself, in trying to bring about the recognition of the need for transparency and reporting, and the recognition that everybody has a job to do to help to root out that kind of conduct.

Dawn Butler: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for securing this urgent question. I also thank all the good police officers who we have in our constituencies and here in Parliament. It is important to mention that, not just because it is true, but because whenever we talk about the police and bad apples, I for one am inundated with a lot of abuse on social media, especially from people with a thin blue line as their picture who claim to be former police officers. If they are former police officers and they levy that abuse towards me, I wonder what they were like when they were serving police officers and what they did on the street when they had all those powers.
Sarah Everard’s killing—her brutal murder—has shocked us all. Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman’s murder came before that of Sarah Everard and the police officers acted appallingly inhumanely by taking pictures of their dead bodies and posting them on a WhatsApp group. I understand that the officers in that WhatsApp group have still not been punished. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have to deal with the culture in the police force. At every single stage, whether the abuse is misogynistic, racist or sexist, we have to deal with it, because the same people are committing crimes over and over again. When police officers are accused of domestic violence, the police often surround them and protect them as if it is more important to protect each other than the public.

Kit Malthouse: I thank the hon. Lady for recognising that there are many thousands of police officers out there doing an outstanding job. I know that they will appreciate her recognition of their work. If she is receiving abuse online from individuals purporting to be police officers, ex-police officers or otherwise, I ask her please to report every single one.

Dawn Butler: I do.

Kit Malthouse: Well, I am grateful that she does, because gathering that kind of intelligence is exactly what we need. As she will know, there is an ongoing review of MPs’ safety and the kind of hatred and abuse that she and others have to put up with online.
In terms of the wider issue about cultural change, the hon. Lady is right. I cannot comment on the individual disciplinary proceedings around that horrendous murder in north London, but she is right that part of our restoring the trust and sense of integrity in British policing is making sure, when such events happen, that the disciplinary proceedings and consequences are swift and certain; that they are conducted with rigour and  alacrity; and that there is transparency about them so that the notion that the police are defensive on those issues is completely dispelled.

Wendy Chamberlain: I associate myself and my party with the tributes paid to James Brokenshire earlier, and I send my condolences to his family.
The Minister mentioned the increasing gender diversity in the police force. A way to continue that trend is to ensure that we effectively demonstrate that internal complaints are being dealt with appropriately. A Unison survey four years ago found that the more serious the behaviour, the less likely to challenge it police staff were. Some 39% said that they would find it easier to keep quiet. As a former police officer, I sadly suspect that little has changed. What consideration is being given to the management and encouragement of reporting of internal complaints, particularly those that do not necessarily become criminal but do constitute misconduct and suggest a potential course of conduct?

Kit Malthouse: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who brings her experience to bear on this area. The message we get from the inspectorate, which has looked at the issue over a number of years and no doubt will again, is that there has been change and improvement in a number of police forces, but it is too patchy, and that the greater resource and greater use of software in many ways—for reporting and for detection—could be more widespread.
The hon. Lady will know that a number of forces have software that detects when officers are accessing certain kinds of material on databases about victims or witnesses, which is useful. We have had several situations where officers have been caught illegally accessing that information and disciplinary or criminal proceedings have resulted from that. As she rightly points out, however, there is still a hell of a lot more to do, and I hope and believe that the working group that the NPCC has set up, in which, as I say, the Home Office is participating, will bring about the real change she is looking for.

Clive Efford: Any woman who rings the police seeking assistance when they are suffering domestic violence or any form of abuse has to have the confidence that the officers who turn up will treat the matter seriously. If those officers have themselves been accused of domestic violence or any form of abuse, are they likely to do so? Can women have confidence that those officers will treat their concerns seriously? Surely the police need to adopt and enforce a zero-tolerance policy so that women can have confidence in the police force.

Kit Malthouse: As I said earlier, these are necessarily matters that fall under the operational independence of a chief constable. One would hope that chief constables in those circumstances might, for example, place an officer on restricted duties or indeed suspend that officer if the allegation were serious enough.

Harriet Harman: indicated dissent.

Kit Malthouse: The right hon. and learned Lady is shaking her head, and I understand that she finds that unsatisfactory, but there are important reasons why chief constables must be the primary source of responsibility, both for suspension and for discipline, in  maintaining the integrity of their own police force. Having said that, the inquiries and reviews that are under way will teach us lessons about what more we can and should do to improve this situation. I would hope and believe that, when we come back with the conclusions from those pieces of work, we can talk again about this issue.

Florence Eshalomi: I also want to pay tribute to my constituency neighbour my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for securing this really important question.
I want to come back to the Minister’s last reply, in which he mentioned that it is up to chief constables. The Minister will be aware of the former chief constable of Nottinghamshire police, Sue Fish, who has said:
“When I tried to address this I was denigrated, isolated, marginalised by many senior people because they didn’t see it as either important or necessary”.
That goes to the heart of the issue we are discussing. Police officers are still in post while those women and girls are fearful, and those women and girls are reporting it to their relevant police officers knowing that nothing will happen. That includes the many women and girls who have come to me in my Vauxhall constituency highlighting the issues of reporting crimes at Brixton police station. We have to change this culture, and warm words will not help those women and girls, so I want to ask the Minister: what help will the Government be giving to those victims?

Kit Malthouse: I agree with the hon. Lady that things have to change, and that is what we are trying to bring about. She will know that, if she has specific constituency cases of people who are dissatisfied, alarmed or concerned about their treatment at the hands of the police, they can go to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and seek satisfaction through that route. They do not have to rely on the police themselves.
As I said earlier, we have to divide two issues here. First, there are allegations of serious sexual offending, which must now by law be reported to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The issue generally of suspension or otherwise for a police officer does at the moment fall to chief constables. Obviously, they are accountable to the local police and crime commissioner—in the hon. Lady’s case, to the Mayor of London—and policy will be set between those two. As I say, there are important reasons why a chief constable must be responsible for the suspension or otherwise of an officer. That is separate from the requirement in law to report these offences to the IOPC, where an independent investigation can take place and then disciplinary proceedings follow, if possible.
I realise that many Members of the House believe that this process appears long-winded. Our job is to balance two things: the right of a constable to due process against the right and the need of the public, particularly women and girls, to have a sense of trust in the system. That is exactly what we will try to learn from and improve through the inquiries we are undertaking and the work that we are doing with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I understand that 750 police officers have been accused of sexual misconduct between 2016 and 2020, including 40 from Welsh police forces. While the numbers are in the public domain, in many cases the outcomes of the accusations are not, even though, as I think everyone here would agree, there is evidently an issue of legitimate public interest. I appreciate that the inquiry will be independent, but I think the public want to know that there is consistency of sanctions when the findings uphold those accusations. Could the Minister make a commitment to me that, in his dealings with the independent inquiry, he will be urging it to consider that within the terms of reference?

Kit Malthouse: I am happy to consider that issue—absolutely. As I said earlier in my statement, we are about—I hope in the new year—for the first time to publish internal force statistics which will give us the full picture. At the moment, we publish national statistics to do with the IOPC inquiries in this area, but a number of allegations are dealt with internally in a force. Once we have that data and it is out in the public domain, we will be able to make a judgment, exactly as the right hon. Member says, about consistency of disposal, and consider what more needs to be done.

Diana R. Johnson: What concerns me about the response of the Minister so far to the issue of suspension of police officers who have been accused of domestic abuse or sexual assault is that this could lead and does lead to inconsistencies all around the country, and it seems to me that there is something the Minister could do. Has he had any conversations with chief constables about what the expectation would be when dealing with officers who have such allegations made against them, and whether suspension is the right way forward?

Kit Malthouse: As I say, I am merely stating a fact that, at the moment, suspension falls to the chief constable, but it is in the nature of this that, with 43 chief constables across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there will be a variable approach. It is in the nature of any—[Interruption.] It is in the nature of any organisation that that is the case, in the same way that we have a variable approach to detecting and prosecuting different types of crime. Our job at the Home Office—[Interruption.] Please allow me to complete my answer.
Our job at the Home Office, exactly as the right hon. Lady is seeking, is to try to embed a sense of consistency of approach across all of those forces to make sure that the British people can have trust in their police whether they are in London, Manchester, Belfast or Edinburgh. That is the work we are trying to get done through this working group with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is very apprised of the importance of this issue, and I have been pleased by the commitment it is showing to this stream of work. I am hopeful that we will reach the greater consistency she seeks in the months to come.

Patricia Gibson: Despite his horrific actions, several Met police officers, inexplicably and alarmingly, spoke in favour of the murderer of Sarah Everard at his sentencing hearing. It has also been reported that he was apparently referred to jokingly as “the Rapist” or “Rapey”, as well as having three previous allegations of indecent exposure.  Does the Minister agree with me that offering such support to a brutal murderer reveals a disturbing and unacceptable attitude by some policemen towards women and towards the seriousness of this crime?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Lady has stated a number of matters as fact that may not be the case. I do not want to prejudge the conclusions, certainly of part 1 of the inquiry. The whole idea of that inquiry is to look at exactly the entire career of that monstrous individual to learn lessons about what may or may not have happened—for example, what previous forces knew about him, and whether he did have that nickname in the previous force—and what lessons we should learn from that about wider policy in maintaining the integrity of the police.

Janet Daby: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for giving us the chance again to discuss this essential issue, which cannot leave our radar. I was astonished when a female criminal solicitor recently told me that she and her female colleagues often experience ongoing ridicule and belittling from male custody officers at my local police station. I find this outrageous. Does the Minister agree with me that this disrespect towards female solicitors is very much part of the culture of misogyny within the police force, and that these disgraceful attitudes and behaviours must be tackled and rooted out of our police force?

Kit Malthouse: I certainly agree that those disgraceful attitudes should be rooted out, and I would urge the individuals affected to make a report and a complaint to the police force concerned.

Jim Shannon: First, I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. This is a very important issue, as has been illustrated. The Minister is aware that the bedrock of a successful police force is integrity and community relations. We have seen in the past in Northern Ireland what the appearance of two-tier policing does to the erosion of confidence. How does the Minister believe confidence can be restored within communities about the integrity of their police force, and in particular for frightened women?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the button, and there is no single answer to restoring, building or even maintaining that kind of trust. He will remember, because of his long history in this House, that some years ago a measure of confidence in policing was produced, and a huge amount of academic effort and work went into understanding what would move that confidence measure—what they could do in policing to shift it and grow confidence. Much of that research went into a dead end. In the end there were broadly two conclusions. One was to do a good job fighting crime, and the second was to be transparent and open, and to have a great relationship with the local community. That is what the vast majority of police officers aspire to. Our stream of work in dealing with the dreadful offences that are committed against women and girls across the country on a daily basis and driving those numbers down, while at the same time working hard to build and restore trust between the police and women and girls, and with all groups in society, must be critical for the health of British policing, and for our greater safety.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question.

Point of Order

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday, in answer to my supplementary question during Home Office questions, I believe—I have obtained guidance on the law from a senior lawyer—that the Minister for Crime and Policing most inadvertently misled the House, and I humbly invite him to take this early opportunity to correct the record. The Minister stated that the process for the rescheduling of compounds is that approval is given for a medicine by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and advice is then taken from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs about the rescheduling, as happened with Epidyolex. Nothing in the legislation requires MHRA authorisation for a compound drug to be moved to schedule 2 to 5 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
The effect of the Minister’s statement means that in practice, compounds will largely not be researched to become medicines. That would require market authorisation as, under the apparent new policy, which has so far never been presented to the House, compounds can never escape the rigours and expense of schedule 1. For British scientists that is a particular barrier to the exciting science around the psychedelic class of drugs that is now more easily developed and researched in North America than it is in the UK, where the science began. For those British scientists denied the opportunity to do that research, due to the costs imposed by the scheduling, it is a constant frustration that there is no recent scientific basis to support the scheduling in the first place.
The Minister’s statement was contradictory not only in logic, but also given recent precedent because—ironically, on the basis of the example given by the Minister—market   authorisation for Epidyolex was granted two years after cannabis-based medicines and medicinal products as a whole were placed in schedule 2, precisely to facilitate the prescription of non-MHRA approved special medicines.

Kit Malthouse: rose—

Rosie Winterton: The Minister may wish to respond further to that point of order.

Kit Malthouse: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his point of order. I have reviewed my words carefully and I do not believe I did, inadvertently or otherwise, mislead the House. He asked about the rescheduling of psilocybin, and I outlined general Government policy, which is—quite rightly—to follow MHRA authorisation on advice. He did not ask me about the law. His point on the law is, I believe, correct, but that is separate to the process of Government policy, which is to take advice on the rescheduling, or otherwise, or the use of substances, either medicinally or otherwise. I know he would not expect me to reschedule a hallucinogenic compound purely on his say so; he would expect me to do so following the examination of serious scientific advice, and that is what I was intending to communicate to him on the day.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and the Minister has responded. If further conversations need to take place, perhaps they could be outside the Chamber. This is obviously a complicated subject, and I suspect that even more detail could be entered into if we left it at that.

Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.23)

Caroline Lucas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place duties on the Secretary of State to decarbonise the United Kingdom economy and to reverse inequality; to establish a 10-year economic and public investment strategy in accordance with those duties which promote a community and employee-led transition from high-carbon to low and zero-carbon industry; to require the Government to report on their adherence to the strategy; to establish higher environmental standards for air, water and green spaces; to make provision to protect and restore natural habitats; and for connected purposes.
With just 10 days to go until the critical COP26 climate talks begin in Glasgow, it is vital that the Government show that they have understood the scale and scope of the climate and nature crises, and that they understand both the work to be done, and the opportunity that that presents to build better lives for us all. We do not need just a 10-point plan, we need a 10-year plan—a comprehensive green new deal that mobilises every part of Government, and every person in these nations: workers and investors, creatives and care workers, scientists and engineers, administrators and accountants, farmers and factory workers.
The Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill, also known as the green new deal Bill, lays out the framework that would make that unprecedented mobilisation possible, and move us from talking to doing. I have stood up in this Chamber so many times over the past 11 years to make the case for bold action in response to the climate and nature crises, as have so many of my colleagues. In each of those 11 years, evidence of the accelerating emergency has become ever clearer, and sadly this year has been no exception. In August the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released what has been described as its “starkest warning yet”. Human activity is changing the earth’s climate in ways that are unprecedented in thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, with some of the changes now “inevitable and irreversible”. As its report set out, only rapid and far-reaching reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade can prevent climate breakdown.
However, just as the issues have become clearer over my time as an MP, so too have the solutions. In this millennium, energy sources such as wind and solar that move us away from fossil fuels have come of age. Those energy technologies have been matched by an explosion of social technologies, community wealth building, new co-operative forms of enterprise, and an understanding of the social and environmental value of, for example, a shorter working week. It has become increasingly clear that the economic path we have been following is destroying the ecosystem we depend on, increasing inequality and impoverishing lives. Not only is it trashing the planet, but it is failing to deliver for millions of people across the UK. If we fail to grasp that, we will fail the climate test. That means that we cannot limit our imaginations to tinkering around the edges of the problem, or to creating a world that is not quite so bad. We must expand our imaginations to encompass a world where we do not treat people, or our living breathing planet,  as expendable.
Our greatest threat now is the delayers, and those who would kick creating a better world into the long grass because they profit from the current destructive system. On that, the Queen is entirely in agreement with climate activist Greta Thunberg when she complains that, “They talk, but they don’t do.” The time for talking is over. It is not inevitable that the news gets worse year on year. We can create a better world. All that is currently lacking is the political will. This is our chance. Every mind, every policy decision, and every spending decision should be focused on the transformation ahead of us.
The Bill sets out comprehensive criteria for a plan that would renew almost every part of our economy and society, together with the means to deliver it. It is not only my work, as it draws on expertise from across the House and every corner of the UK, including from the hon. Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Oldham East and Saddleworth, for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), and for North Down (Stephen Farry), who are co-sponsoring the Bill. The Bill has had input from scientists and civil society groups, unions and campaigners, and tax experts. It shows what we can do when we work together.
The first part of the Bill sets out targets to reduce emissions in line with our commitment to stay within 1.5° C of global heating, to restore nature and to reverse inequality. The Bill then sets out a framework for the reform of our financial and economic system so that the Government are free to work with all sectors to mobilise the resources necessary to invest in the complete renewal of our economy and society. That would put the Government, and not markets, in charge of the economy so that we are able to make the big economic decisions that will affect our futures.
We saw what was possible in the early phases of the covid pandemic. When they choose to, the Government can intervene on behalf of the people of this country. They can house the homeless, they can write off NHS debt overnight and—for a time, at least—they can put health and wellbeing above profit and growth. Now, we need those kinds of changes to be made on an everyday basis, not just as an extraordinary occurrence.
Doing that requires much greater co-ordination between the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Debt Management Office, so that we can manage the flow of money through the economy. Under the green new deal, credit creation, the availability of credit and the tax system would work together to benefit the whole of society. That would allow us to invest in renewable energy, clean transport, climate-friendly farming and warm homes. It would reduce inequality and increase incomes and tax revenues through the creation of skilled, well-paid jobs. Wealth taxes and measures to reduce tax evasion and avoidance would contribute, too.
A clear plan for Government investment would give private investors the confidence they need to put resources into the green new deal. Changing tax incentives on pensions and individual savings accounts to direct funds into the green new deal would bring long-term benefits to everyday savers and everyone in society. But we need to go further.
The Treasury’s own Dasgupta review of the economics of biodiversity calls for
“urgent and transformative change in how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world.”
That means that GDP can no longer be our fundamental measure of progress. Instead, we should prioritise measures that help to guide us towards real prosperity, such as improvements in people’s health and wellbeing, the reversal of inequality, tackling the climate emergency, and the restoration and protection of the natural environment on which we all depend.
As so often, the people of the UK are ahead of the Government on this. Two thirds of UK adults think that the Government should prioritise the health and wellbeing of citizens over GDP growth. Other nations have led the way. New Zealand’s wellbeing budget, led by its Treasury, invests billions in tackling deep-rooted social and environmental problems, including the climate crisis.
Once management of the economy is transformed, the Bill makes provision for a green new deal commission, drawing in expertise from across society and informed by a series of citizens’ assemblies, to rapidly draw up a 10-year plan for the UK. That plan will set out how we decarbonise and diversify our energy supply; how we insulate the UK’s 29 million homes; how we transform the way we travel so we no longer depend on fossil fuels and our air is cleaner; how we invest in climate-friendly agriculture, and how we restore and enhance our environment, increasing the number of green spaces for us all to enjoy.
That means valuing the work that human hands do—the growing, the producing and delivery of the food that we eat; the shaping of the physical infrastructure, from warmer homes to low-carbon transport; and, crucially, the provision of care. It means creating good, unionised, secure jobs in every corner of the UK, delivering on the promise to level up.
This worker-led just transition will redress the historical mismanagement of industrial change and structural inequalities in the economy, to ensure that the green new deal enhances all our lives. New forms of business, from worker-owned co-operatives to community enterprises, will bring many more of us a stake in our future. Bringing key services into democratic ownership will ensure that our energy and water, our rail and mail, are run for the public good. And there are things we need to stop doing, too. There can be no more fossil fuel extraction, no more aviation expansion and no new plans for roads, where the money could far more effectively be spent on improving the existing network.
There is much work to be done. We have just a decade to turn this around. That is why this is our last best chance. By raising our sights to the horizon, we can create a world that is more humane and beautiful. One  of my favourite cartoons shows a professor in front of a whiteboard. They have written up all the advantages of moving to a greener society, and a student says, “But what happens if climate change is a hoax and we’ve created a better world for no reason?” This is about creating a better world—that is what this Bill will do.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis, Zarah Sultana, Wera Hobhouse, Nadia Whittome, Debbie Abrahams, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry and Beth Winter present the Bill.
Caroline Lucas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 172).

Environment Bill: Programme (No. 6)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Environment Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26 February 2020 in the last Session of Parliament (Environment Bill: Programme), as varied in that Session by the Orders of 4 May 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 2)), 22 June 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 3)), 28 September 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 4)) and 26 January 2021 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 5)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement.
(2) The proceedings—
(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

  

  Lords Amendments
  Time for conclusion of proceedings


  Nos. 1 to 3, 12, 28, 31, 33, 75, 4 to 11, 13 to 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 64, 69, 70
  Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments.


  Nos. 43, 45, 65 to 67, 94, 95, 46 to 63, 71 to 74, 91 to 93
  Four and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings.


  Nos. 85, 36 to 42, 44, 68, 76 to 84, 86 to 90
  Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mrs Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.

Environment Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Rosie Winterton: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 28, 40 and 59. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Before Clause 1 - Purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency

Rebecca Pow: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 28, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 75, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 4 to 11, 13 to 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 64, 69 and 70.

Rebecca Pow: I am delighted to be cracking on with the Environment Bill. It has dominated my whole life as an Environment Minister, but I hope we all agree that it has only got the stronger for it. Make no mistake that this is a landmark piece of legislation that will increase our resource efficiency and biodiversity, drive improvements in air and water quality, and put us on the sustainable trajectory for the future that I believe we all want and need.
Even though the Bill has not been before the House for some time, it has grown, developed and strengthened in that time. My officials have been working tirelessly with all others involved to bring forward a whole range of measures in the Bill. We have already launched five local nature recovery strategy pilots, we have appointed Dame Glenys Stacey as chair-designate of the office for environmental protection, and we have consulted on the extended producer responsibility, the deposit return scheme and consistent recycling collections in England.
The Bill is packed with positive measures, but I am delighted that the Government have improved it even further. [Interruption.] There is lots of agreement from the Opposition Benches—excellent. Lords amendment 4 and its consequential amendments will require the Secretary of State to set a new, historic, legally binding target to  halt the decline of species by 2030. That is a bold, vital and world-leading commitment. It forms the core of the Government’s pledge to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
In the same vein, the Government acknowledge that the climate and biodiversity situation is an emergency. I am very pleased to say that that was referenced by the Prime Minister himself, who pledged to
“meet the global climate emergency”
in his foreword to the net zero strategy, which was published just yesterday. However, addressing those twin challenges requires action rather than declarations, which is why the Government are acting now. We have committed to set a new historic legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.

Bob Seely: I genuinely thank the Minister for all the incredible work she has done. She talks about the importance of biodiversity. Does she understand that I found it a little frustrating that the Government did not look in a better way and more closely at my amendment, which would have closed the loophole on sites of special scientific interest? Currently, the loophole allows an SSSI to effectively be concreted over, damaging the biodiversity she wishes to protect. Even at this late stage, will the Government look again at that SSSI amendment, please?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Obviously, we take SSSIs extremely seriously under their designations. There is a set pathway for SSSIs and for looking after them, but I think he will agree, if he listens to what I have to say, that the Bill contains some very strong measures on biodiversity, which are much needed and will help us to that trajectory of restoring nature.
I was saying that we have a legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance. The UK was also the first economy to set a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Our target for the sixth carbon budget is world-leading. The “Net Zero Strategy” published yesterday builds on the 10-point plan, the energy White Paper, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy, and the heat and building strategy, setting out our ambitious plans across all key sectors of the economy to reach net zero. This is an all-in approach.
Of course, it is not just our domestic approach that counts. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is our No. 1 international priority, which is why we are driving forward our COP26 presidency and playing a leading role in developing an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework due to be adopted at the convention on biological diversity COP15. Therefore, putting the declaration in Lords amendment 1 in law, although well-intentioned, is not necessary.
Lords amendment 2 would require the Government to set a legally binding target on soil health. I would like to be clear with the House and the other place that we are currently considering how to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health, which could be used to inform a future soils target. However, we do not yet have the reliable metrics needed to set a robust target by October next year and to measure its progress. If we accepted the amendment, we could be committing to doing something that we cannot deliver or might not  even know if we have delivered. I am sure hon. Members and hon. Friends would agree that that is not a sensible approach.

Kerry McCarthy: I am a little concerned to hear the Minister say that they are still not ready to go ahead. From my recollection of the past few years, we talked about this issue in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee and when this Bill was in Committee. Has work actually started on this and how long does she think the programme of work will take? Why is it taking so long?

Rebecca Pow: I am pleased that the hon. Member, like me, is deeply passionate about soil. I think I held the first ever debate on soil in Parliament when I was a Back Bencher. It is something that I am personally very keen on. We believe we cannot commit to set the actual target until we have that baseline of robust metrics. We consulted and are working very widely with experts and specialists. Indeed, a range of pilots, tests and trials are running related to soil. Instead, I can provide reassurance that the Government, as announced in the other place on Report, will be bringing forward a soil health action plan for England. It will provide a clear strategic direction to develop a healthy soil indicator, soil structure methodology and a soil health monitoring scheme. All those things are absolutely necessary before we can set the actual target, but there is a huge amount of work going on, on the soil agenda. I am personally pushing that forward, as is the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), with whom I am working very closely on this matter.

Caroline Lucas: I know the Minister is personally committed to the soil agenda—I remember sitting with her on the Environmental Audit Committee—and I am sure she shares my concern about this being hugely delayed. She talks about the action plan, but the draft outline will not even be consulted on until spring next year. What can we do to try to speed that up? It is a massively serious issue, as she knows, yet the signals from the Government are that they are treating it with complacency.

Rebecca Pow: I completely disagree with the hon. Lady, although I am listening to what she is saying. There is no complacency whatever on this. In fact, soil will be one of the top priorities in our new environmental land management and sustainable farming initiative schemes. So it will be prioritised. It is the stuff of life. All farmers and landowners understand that we have to get it right. The soil health action plan will absolutely drive that forward, as have action plans in many other areas, such as peat. We are now bringing that all into being, so I can categorically say that this will happen. I really hope that that gives her some reassurance.
I also urge Members to look at the written ministerial statement on this matter, which was published just yesterday. The plan and its actions will create a robust baseline from which we can monitor improvements in  soil health, identify trends and support informed policy decisions, including any future environmental targets for soil health.
On Lords amendment 3, on air quality, the Government are committed to driving forward tangible and long-lasting improvements to the air we breathe. We will set ambitious air quality targets through the Bill, including a specific target on PM2.5 which is the air pollutant that has the most significant impact on human health. Delivering ambitious reductions in PM2.5 will require action from everyone: national Government, local government, businesses and individual citizens. The more ambitious the targets, the greater the level of intervention that will be required.

Neil Parish: I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill. We really do need to get to this target quickly. We also have the situation whereby the World Health Organisation is reducing the amount of PM2.5 that can be in the atmosphere. Are the Government taking this very seriously—not only the target that we have had all along but the new target that the WHO is setting?

Rebecca Pow: My hon. Friend takes a huge amount of interest in this issue and I know my officials met him very recently to discuss the detail.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Geraint Davies: rose—

Rebecca Pow: I am just going to answer this question.
Yes, the WHO has already lowered what it thinks is the safe limit, which I think demonstrates how complicated the issue is. It would be wrong to set a number on the face of the Bill without being absolutely certain that it was the right one—as my hon. Friend understands. I have spent a great deal of time on this issue with academics and scientists, and I am happy to share with others if that is helpful. We must make sure we get this right before we set the target. To be clear, to achieve even the 10 micrograms per metre squared in our cities would require significant change in all our lives. It would likely introduce policies aimed at restricting traffic kilometres by as much as 50% or more, a total ban on solid fuel burning including wood, and significant changes to farming practices to reduce ammonia, which reacts in the air to form particulate matter.

Barry Sheerman: In the spirit of what we all felt and discussed after the tragedy of last week, I feel passionate about all these issues but I am determined to be good-tempered and pleasant to everyone in the whole of the debate. Along those lines, I have a passionate interest in clean air and have worked in this area for 27 years—I started an organisation called the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality 27 years ago. The fact of the matter is, however, that this is glacially slow movement. We are poisoning pregnant women, older people and children in every town and city. Why are we not committed to sustainable development goals? Why do we not have a sustainable development community in every town and city? It all seems so glacially slow. I can almost see the spectral vision of Lord Lawson at the back there—that is what really worries me.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for all his work in this area. In the spirit of being friendly, I have a smile on my face, but I would say that we are not moving slowly. He did not even reference the clean air strategy, which the WHO commended as being a world-leading piece of legislation. That is already bringing in measures across the country. There is also the £3.6 billion in the nitrogen oxide programme. The new air quality Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—who is sitting here, has a very big health interest. We are taking this extremely seriously. We need to look at the wider context and the Bill will then set the two targets—not just the average target, but the population exposure target, which is really important.

Geraint Davies: Given that the World Health Organisation had a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre, which we are asking for in this amendment, and it is now 5 micrograms, does that not show that the only direction is down? Ten micrograms is a minimum standard that we surely need to achieve both to save tens of thousands of lives and to tell the world, through COP26—8.7 million people are dying every year of air pollution—that global Britain means showcasing the fact that we are willing to provide legally binding targets to deliver on public health, care costs, productivity and a cleaner, greener, better world.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have met many, many times and we share a common interest in this issue. We are not arguing about its importance—[Interruption.] He is encouraging me—I thank him, but I do not need any encouragement actually; we realise how serious this is. The point is that we will be setting the target and we will be showing the world. We will announce that target next October, but we will consult on it before that. It would be wrong to set, for example, a specific number, if, indeed, we found that that number should be lower. I will leave it there.
We have to have a public consultation on this issue and we will do so early next year. Members of the public will want to understand not only the health impacts, but what impacts the measures that will be taken will have on their life. But we will not be sitting around. The consultation will allow us to bring forward the final target in October, and we cannot miss that target.

Bob Neill: I understand that the Minister wants a consultation. I see good sense in that if we are to take the public with us, and I understand that she may be concerned about setting targets now. However, in areas such as mine—not inner cities, but suburban constituencies—there is a real issue with particulate pollution. We have a real problem with hotspots. Even if we are having a consultation until October, for heaven’s sake, can we not have a hotspots policy specifically to target areas where particulates are clearly high already? At least if we were doing that, it would be a reassurance to many of my constituents.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but we already have our clean air strategy, as I said, and our local authority fund, which we have  recently increased by millions. I urge him to have a look at that fund and I urge his authority to apply. Many authorities are already taking their own measures because they know, for example, where the hotspots are. He makes a very sound point and the exposure target will really help those hotspots, which is why it is so important.

Matt Rodda: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Further to the point about air pollution and working with the public, is the Minister also aware of the potentially significant business opportunities for vehicle and, indeed, cycle manufacturers in shifting to a low-pollution approach? As the hon. Gentleman said, local authorities are natural partners, but there are also partners in the private sector that could benefit hugely if the Government were able to make a clearer statement and agree at an earlier point with the WHO’s target.

Rebecca Pow: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen runner and gets out and about, probably on his bicycle as well, and he makes a very good point. This is why our net zero strategy, our road to decarbonisation for transport and the £2 billion that we have invested in cycling and walkways are so important. All those funds are being incorporated when local authorities apply for their budgets to deal with their hotspots. The clean air zone areas, which we are bringing in across the country, take advantage of exactly the opportunities that he raises.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister is being generous and kind in giving way again. Has she seen the experiment in the cities of Oxford and London, where air quality detectors are on every waste truck? Every week, waste trucks go to every house in every street in the country. If we put those on every waste truck—and it is cheap—we would know the hotspots and the British public would know very quickly what sort of atmosphere their children were growing up in and what air we are breathing. Will she have a serious look at that and, in the process, discuss it with Sir Stephen Holgate, who is such a magnificent expert on all that?

Rebecca Pow: I would suggest a meeting with the new air quality Minister—actually, I meet Sir Stephen Holgate regularly, as he is one of our advisers. We are increasing monitoring across the country for exactly the purposes that the hon. Gentleman mentions: the better the data, the more we know what action we can take.
The targets that we are working on are being carefully approached with experts such as Sir Stephen Holgate, as well as others from Imperial College London and the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. We have two expert panels: the air quality expert group, chaired by Professor Alastair Lewis, and the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, chaired by Anna Hansell of the University of Leicester. That will ensure that we get the targets right and that they are informed by the latest atmospheric science and health evidence. We will, of course, share those findings with the World Health Organisation.

Geraint Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: I am going to plough on for a bit, because I think I have been pretty generous so far. The two targets that we will set—a concentration target and  a population exposure reduction target—will work together to both reduce PM2.5 in areas with the highest levels and drive the continuous improvement that we need. A focus on reducing population exposure, not just a concentration-based target, recognises that there is no safe level of PM2.5, and a scientific approach is absolutely the right way to go. We recognise that this will not be easy and that we need to engage with society to bring it along with us.

Simon Hoare: The Minister is a doughty champion on this issue so I rise with some degree of trepidation. May I ask her one question? The data is all going in one direction. Do the Government have the power, if they see something so pressing, not to have to engage with consultation, so they can just say, “On the face of this, it is absolutely clear that the time for action is now. We don’t have to consult—just get on and do it”? Is that within her arsenal?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but I think we would have as many critics for not consulting as we did for consulting, so that is the right way to go because there are always other views. I think we have agreed how important it is by saying that we have to set a target. Not only are we setting one target, but we have agreed to set two, and there can be all sorts of other targets within that.

Simon Hoare: I was not criticising the decision that the Minister has taken to consult on this issue. I merely inquire, in a spirit of curiosity, whether she as the Minister or the Secretary of State have the power—to use at some point—to set aside any requirement for consultation and just to act? Theoretically, is that power there?

Rebecca Pow: I imagine my hon. Friend knows the answer to that.

Simon Hoare: I do not.

Rebecca Pow: The method we choose is to consult and to take expert advice in everything we do, particularly in a Department such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is rooted in science. I will move on now, and I hope that I have made it very clear throughout all this discussion about air quality that, for the reasons I have laid out, we cannot support this amendment.
To turn to amendment 12, I would like to reiterate much of what Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park said in the other place. Our world-leading targets framework will drive action by successive Governments to protect and enhance our natural world. Introducing legally binding interim targets, as the amendment proposes, would be both unnecessary and detrimental to our targets framework and our environmental ambitions. The amendment would undermine the long-term nature of the targets framework: it would force us to meet legally binding targets every five years on complex environmental systems.
We have designed the targets clauses to look beyond the political cycle of any one Government, avoiding action focused on short-term quick wins. We would not  want to have to deprioritise key aspects of the environment with longer recovery times just to meet a five-year target. As many hon. Members will know, anything to do with land and land use can take a long time to see results, so this is the right approach.

Bernard Jenkin: We are so delighted to see my hon. Friend in this role, taking the Bill through, but why does she think that there is a temptation for Parliament to legislate for targets, which the Government seem to find very unhelpful? Will she reflect on the fact that the public at large are getting very little hard data or measured metrics about how we are doing onr4321a achieving all these goals? Perhaps the answer is not to legislate for more targets, but for the Government to acknowledge that they need to do much better at accumulating data and presenting it to the public, so that the public are engaged and have more confidence in what the Government are doing.

Rebecca Pow: Data is key, and science is key. As I mentioned—and I was slightly disparaged—that is why we want to do the soil health monitoring: to gather the data. When I talk later about storm sewage overflows, the House will hear that our approach is very much about getting the data. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the more we can explain things to the public, the better. Personally, I do not think that we do that enough. Perhaps the press could help us.
We were talking about interim targets. Certain habitats take a very long time to change or recover, such as peat bogs, native woodlands and the marine environment. Five years would potentially be too short to get a result. This should not be just a tick-box exercise towards a five-yearly target. The Bill’s very robust statutory cycle of monitoring, annual reporting and five-yearly reviews, combined with regular scrutiny from the office for environmental protection, will ensure that we meet the interim targets set in the environmental improvement plans.
Hon. Members who were on the Bill Committee will be well aware of the whole process of reporting, monitoring and feeding back, which is constant. It comes under scrutiny as well, so even though an interim target is not legally binding, we will still be held to account for meeting it and heading towards it. If it is not right or if we are not making enough progress, the OEP will certainly have something to say about it, and indeed so will Parliament when we come to report on it. I recognise the concerns raised by peers, but it is our view that the changes made in the other place would lead to a detrimental impact on the enhancement of the environment and should be reversed.
I turn to Lords amendment 28, which I have been informed by the parliamentary authorities invokes financial privilege, but on which I still wish to reiterate the Government’s position. The Bill embeds environmental principles that will guide future policy making to protect the environment. The Government firmly maintain that exempting some limited areas from the duty to have regard provides flexibility in relation to finances, defence and national security.
First, the exemption for the armed forces, defence and national security remains essential to provide vital flexibility to preserve the nation’s protection and security. Defence land and defence policy are fundamentally  linked. If the duty were applied to defence policy or Ministry of Defence land, it could result in legal challenges that could slow our ability to respond to urgent threats.
Secondly, applying the duty to taxation would constrain Treasury Ministers’ ability to alter our financial position to respond to the changing needs of our public finances. The Treasury’s world-leading Green Book already mandates the consideration of environmental impacts, climate change and natural capital in spending. That applies to spending bids from Departments, including for a fiscal event.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: For the last time, and then I will need to make some progress.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am very conscious that a lot of Members want to speak and that the debate has to finish at 4.36 pm, so I think we need to bear that in mind.

Caroline Lucas: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is only my second intervention, and it will be my last for the moment.
On environmental principles, may I ask the Minister about the consultation on the policy statement? As I understand it, the Government’s response to it is still delayed. Can she tell us when we can expect to see it and why it has been delayed for so long?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for that question. In true Government-speak, I will say “shortly” and move on.
I make it clear that the exemption for
“spending or the allocation of resources”
refers to central spending decisions only. Individual policies that involve spending by Departments will still need to have due regard to the policy statement. Spending review and fiscal event decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of policy priorities, including macroeconomic issues that are too remote from the environmental principles for those principles to be directly applicable. For example, principles such as “polluter pays” cannot be applied to the allocation of overall departmental budgets.
I turn to the office for environmental protection. Lords amendments 31 and 75 would remove, respectively, the power for the Secretary of State to offer guidance to the OEP and the equivalent power for Ministers in Northern Ireland. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to establishing the OEP as an independent body. However, as the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP, the guidance power is required to ensure that there is appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance for the OEP. Our Government amendment (b)  will therefore reintroduce the additional provision, first added in the other place, to ensure that Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly can scrutinise draft guidance before it is issued. The Secretary of State must respond before final guidance can be laid and have effect. The guidance power is not a power of direction; it will simply ensure that there is appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively. That is why the Government believe that it should remain part of the Bill.

Jim Shannon: What would happen if the Northern Ireland Assembly said that it did not agree with the legislation proposed here? Would Westminster overrule it?

Rebecca Pow: Northern Ireland is included in this, but it has to decide whether it wants to commence the powers. It is up to it to do so.
Lords amendment 33 relates to the OEP’s enforcement powers—a complex issue, but an important one. I want to be clear with the House about what the amendment would do: it would remove protections for third parties brought into the OEP’s process of environmental review that have been specifically designed in recognition of the unique nature of this type of legal challenge. That is unacceptable. The OEP will be able to bring cases to court, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken and outside the standard judicial review limits. Impacts on third parties must therefore be considered.
To give an example, quashing planning permission or consent for a block of flats many months or years after the decision was taken, when significant building works might already have commenced, would result in substantial hardship. We need to ensure that the key principles of fairness and certainty are upheld for third parties who have acted in good faith on the basis of certain decisions. The amendment would offer no such protections for third parties, so we cannot accept it.
I will conclude by briefly mentioning other Government amendments made in the Lords in relation to devolution, which I hope this House will support. Those amendments will, among other things, promote co-operation between the OEP and devolved environmental governance bodies and create clarity and consistency on the use of the environmental principles across the Union.
I am pleased to be backing the Environment Bill

Royal Assent

Rosie Winterton: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:
Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021
Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure 2021.

Environment Bill

Before Clause 1 - Purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency

Debate resumed.
Question again proposed, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the shadow Minister, let me reiterate that this debate must finish at 4.36 pm. There are a number of speakers, and I urge brevity so that we can get everyone in. I cannot impose a time limit, because we are debating Lords amendments, so it will be up to all Members to help each other out if they want to speak.

Ruth Jones: I want to start by marking the wicked and senseless murder of Sir David Amess. I was not able to speak in the tributes on Monday, but I do want to place on record my sorrow and send my prayers and thoughts to Sir David’s family, to his staff in the House and in Southend, and to his constituents. I also want to extend condolences to the family, staff and constituents of the late James Brokenshire, whose passing was untimely and very sad indeed. Both colleagues will be much missed throughout the House.
On a happier note, I want to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her position as Minister for Air, but, sadly, she seems to have disappeared into thin air! That is a bit of a worry.
Here we are, back in the House and back discussing the Environment Bill, 629 days after it received its First Reading. I am grateful to the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill, and for succeeding where this House was unable to do so and making it fit for purpose. As we approach COP26 in Glasgow, a Bill fit for purpose has never been more needed. The world is watching, and the world is waiting for leadership from the British Government. The Bill could and should be stronger, it could have passed through the House much sooner, and it had the scope for real cross-party involvement; but alas, thanks to this Secretary of State and this Prime Minister, it was not to be.
Lords amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Hayman, is about tackling toxic air, and it is so, so important. I am grateful to her for taking up the baton of Labour’s focus on cleaning our air and our lungs. Nearly 60% of people in England now live in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits in 2019-20. We cannot go on as we are; we require real leadership, which is why Labour will be supporting Lords amendment 3 and voting to ensure that it remains in the Bill.
This Conservative Government’s approach to air quality has been ruled unlawful multiple times. Following Labour’s best efforts to amend the Bill in this place, the Lords succeeded in writing into it enforceable targets to bring air pollution below the harmful levels set by the World Health Organisation. The time for hot air from the  Government Benches is over, and I encourage all colleagues—I am thinking particularly of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—to realise that now is the time to adopt a proper and comprehensive approach to cleaning our air in this Bill. Please come and join us, and let us get this done.
In raising the important topic of air quality, I want to pay warm tribute to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah for all her campaigning work in the wake of the avoidable, tragic and devastating death of her daughter Ella. I read the letter that Rosamund wrote to the Prime Minister today, and I agree with every single word that she said.

Matt Rodda: I had the pleasure of meeting Rosamund, and I can only say that my heart goes out to the family and that it is the most awful situation.
My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the importance of air quality and the need for a much tougher approach from the Government, and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will listen. Does my hon. Friend agree that a dramatic improvement in the Government’s approach to water quality is also important? There is a serious problem with sewage being swept into our rivers, notably in my area in Berkshire, which is downstream from a number of effluent works.

Ruth Jones: I do agree, and I am sure that that topic will be dealt with by my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), very appropriately when we debate the next group of amendments.
I want to share some of Rosamund’s letter to the Prime Minister, from which I quote:
“Ella was hospitalised 28 times in 28 months and admitted to ICU five times, fighting back from the brink of death. Her condition meant her lungs frequently filled with mucus, which made her feel as if she was constantly suffocating.”
I was disappointed to hear the Minister say today that she is delaying the consultation about air quality until next October, because that means that an additional 36,000 to 40,000 people in the UK could die prematurely every year owing to exposure to air pollution. Among them are between 22 and 24 children and young people who die from asthma every year, eight to 12 of whom live in London. The UK has one of the highest death rates from asthma in Europe, whereas in Finland, a country with better air quality, not a single child dies of asthma in a year.
As Rosamund goes on to say, the Environment Bill is our once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that children born now—including our own children—can grow up breathing safe, healthy air. Those are powerful words from a mother determined to ensure that no other parent experiences the loss of a child and no other child loses its life because the Government refused to act. Labour will not stop in the fight for cleaner air, and if this Tory Government will not act, Labour will. Let me make clear again that we will deliver a stand-alone clean air Act when we win the next general election.
As we have heard, this Bill creates the Office for Environmental Protection, but fails to give it the powers that it needs. A strong, effective and trusted OEP is, in the words of my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch,  essential to underpin all the other measures contained in the Bill. As the OEP will be scrutinising and holding Ministers to account in respect of their compliance with environmental laws, rules and regulations, it is vital for the OEP to be strong and independent, and to engage properly with all devolved nations in our United Kingdom.
It is also beyond comprehension that since the Bill worked its way through both Houses, Ministers have actually weakened their own proposals for this new office. If that approach continues, the OEP will become a lapdog rather than a watchdog, and this will be simply another missed opportunity for the Secretary of State. It is because of that missed opportunity that Lords amendment 31 in the name of Lord Krebs, Lords amendment 33 in the name of Lord Anderson, and Lords amendment 75 in the name of our former colleague from South Down, my noble Friend Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, are so important. They strengthen the powers, reach and scope of the OEP, and they have our full support.
I thank Lord Teverson for Lords amendment 1, which requires the Government to declare a biodiversity and climate emergency. How can anyone disagree with that? I also thank Baroness Bennett for Lords amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that soil health and quality remains a priority area for environmental improvement; and, of course, I welcome Lords amendment 28 from Baroness Parminter. This amendment removes the exceptions in the Bill for policy making on defence and security, tax, spending and resource allocation from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. If the Bill is going to mean anything and if Ministers are serious about tackling the climate emergency, they will support those amendments today.
Lords amendment 12, in the name of Baroness Brown of Cambridge, is an important component of the fight to make this Bill fit for purpose. It seeks, very simply, to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets that he or she sets. It is obvious why targets are required, and it is obvious why we need to be able to track our progress, monitor our focus and honour our promises. The amendment received cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that it will do so in the House today.
At every stage of this Bill, Labour has proposed fair, balanced and objective amendments that seek to make the Bill fit for purpose and, moreover, actually help us tackle the climate emergency and set out a real place to protect our environment and preserve our planet. I have said to the House before that we do not have time to waste: the climate crisis worsens each day, and real action is necessary. But that requires a strong Bill, not a half-hearted attempt that does not recognise, or match, the seriousness of the challenge in front of us.
Disappointingly for many in the sector and for the future of our planet, nothing in the Bill will stop the UK falling behind the EU on the environment and environmental standards. Over the past year, as well as dealing with the coronavirus pandemic we have seen fires raging across Australia, the US and the Amazon, at the same time as glaciers are melting away in the Arctic and Antarctic. We are seeing increasingly erratic and life-threatening weather patterns in our cities and rural areas alike.
This Bill needs energy and dynamism, and the amendments before the House today make a bad Bill better. I hope that Ministers will simply and finally do the right thing. They should accept these fair and balanced amendments from their lordships’ House, and I urge them to work with Labour to deliver a real plan to protect our environment and preserve our planet.

Neil Parish: It is a pleasure to speak to Lords amendment 1 and to this first group of amendments. I very much agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on David Amess and James Brokenshire. They were great colleagues in the House and we miss them very much. I send my condolences to their families.
I wanted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but I cannot do so at the moment because she is not here. She will be a great asset to the environmental team. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) does a great job, but I am sure that some help will be needed with this huge subject and I look forward to my hon. Friend helping her with it.
I welcome the progress of the Bill, and I appreciate the fact that the Government have been open and willing to engage on some of the issues raised. I have no doubt that the amendments put forward by the other place have shaped the Government’s thinking and will make the Bill stronger. The Government might not support the Lords’ amendments, but I urge them to take notice of them as the Bill is finally brought to fruition.
On another positive note, I commend the Government for setting up the interim Office for Environmental Protection. I also welcome the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as its chair, because I believe that she will do a very good job. I hope that the OEP will be able to improve the environment by ensuring that some cases can be settled before they even get to court. That will be a really strong role for the OEP. I also want to ensure that the independence of the chair and the OEP is maintained. I have confidence in the present Secretary of State, but we need to ensure that those offices are independent for all time. Soil health, including organic matter and soil erosion, are also important issues for the way forward, and we need to ensure that we get them absolutely right.
Lords amendment 3 would set out a stringent target for cutting PM2.5 and I completely agree with the intention behind the amendment. I want us to commit to matching the World Health Organisation limits by 2030, and as I said in a question to the Minister, the WHO is reducing those levels. However, the Bill as it stands includes a legally binding duty on the Government to set an air quality target by this time next year, October 2022. We have had a lot of consultation on this, and I urge the Minister and the Government to get on with it. I look forward to their setting that target, and if they do  not have to wait until October 2022, please will they not do so?
I would welcome some detail from the Minister on the timetable for the public consultation next year. When will it be launched, how long will it run and when   will the results be published? This really is a pressing issue, so we cannot let that target date slip further. I would also be grateful to know whom the Government plans to consult on the targets. How will they engage with non-governmental organisations, businesses and the wider public? Will the consultation include the option to express support for matching WHO guidelines on PM2.5? Current UK limits are 25 micrograms per cubic metre. The WHO’s recommended limit is 10, and that was set in 2005. It has spent the last five years reviewing its guidelines and it has just updated them. This new limit is half its current limit, at 5 micrograms, which is five times lower than our current UK limit. I hope that the Government will consider any new WHO guidelines that have come out by the time of the consultation next year. I do not want to see us consulting on matching a target that the WHO set in 2005 and that is no longer relevant.
The WHO also confirmed last year that the guidelines should be the minimum goal. I would like that number to be as low as possible. These particulates are among the most dangerous pollutants. They are small enough to pass through the lungs into the bloodstream and into our organs, so ideally the legal limit should be zero, because there is no safe level of PM2.5. I know that this would be almost impossible, but bringing that number as low as possible would still mean saving thousands of lives. As we drive to achieve much lower carbon emissions in this country and across the world, we must remember that air quality affects our day-to-day lives. It affects people’s health every day and is potentially killing people as we speak.
We have to ensure that this is one of our great priorities. It is so important, because poor air quality is directly affecting people’s health and lifespan in some hotspots in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made the point that we need to concentrate on those hotspots by working with local authorities across the piece to deliver better air quality. When our Joint Committee comprising four Committees of this House looked into air quality, we saw that it was not just DEFRA, Transport and Local Government but virtually every part of Government that would help to deliver better air quality.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that constituencies such as mine would be more reassured if the Government were to set up some sort of taskforce to pull together these various agencies? Funding is available to local authorities, but there is a lack of strategic focus to enable everything to be pulled together. That is something sensible that we could do to reassure people that the can is not simply being kicked down the road until next October or beyond.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about a taskforce. Whether it is a taskforce or an individual, somebody needs to pull all this together to make sure that it actually happens. That is absolutely key as we move forward.

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil Parish: The hon. Gentleman has made many interventions, but I will allow him one more.

Barry Sheerman: This is a very quick one. The hon. Gentleman and I share this passion, and he knows that a number of our towns are trying to make themselves sustainable under the United Nations sustainable development goals. Many councils now have a climate change emergency resolution and climate change commissions, but they do not quite know what to do. Does he agree that, given that we have all these groups in these towns and cities, we should go for 500 towns and cities in this country, such as Huddersfield, that are committed to becoming truly sustainable under the UN sustainable development goals?

Neil Parish: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that short intervention! We have taken evidence from the Mayor of Bristol. He talked about air quality, and he told us that the M32 comes right into the centre of Bristol, but the trouble is that the Mayor has little control over what happens on that motorway. That is why I very much agree with joining up what the Government and local authorities are doing across the country. We can do more, and there needs to be more urgency about it.
We must remember nine-year-old Ella, whose death was caused by exposure to air pollution. Her primary source of exposure was traffic emissions. We cannot have our children growing up in a world in which the air they breathe could potentially kill them.
On that note I stress that, although a broad reduction target could help drive improvements across the country, we also need strong limits on concentrations in particular hotspots. We need action on that quickly, as it would ensure that everyone benefits from a minimum level of protection. Without such action, people living in pollution hotspots could be left behind and existing health inequalities could be widened, so this is something we need to address.
The US and the EU are considering tightening their own limits. If we want to be world leading, we need an ambitious target and we need it quickly. However, I know this is a complex issue and the solution cannot be delivered overnight. It is one thing to set a target, but it is another thing to meet and deliver that target. Reducing overall air pollution needs a dramatic reduction in emissions from transport, homes and farming. I have no doubt that it will be difficult to do and that a proper, well-thought-out strategy is needed, but I know the Government are not afraid of setting ambitious targets.
Setting an ambitious air pollution target can also help to drive action to meet the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050. Pollution from road transport, as well as from domestic and industrial burning, is also a cause of greenhouse gas emissions. We have an opportunity to tackle both climate change and air pollution at the same time, and we can help the planet and protect people’s health. I support a binding commitment to publishing a target after a full consultation, but I make it clear that this is an urgent issue and I will continue to hold the Government to account. October 2022 must be the absolute last point at which we set a proper target on reducing PM2.5 in law.

Deidre Brock: I rise principally to speak to Lords amendment 29, but first I would like to associate myself with the shadow Minister’s remarks about James Brokenshire and  Sir David Amess. I always very much enjoyed their contributions in the House, which I am certain we will all miss. I also add my deepest condolences to the family, friends and staff of those two much-loved and missed Members of this House.
The urgent drumbeats accompanying the global crisis that faces us have become near deafening. We all pin our hopes on COP26 and the possibility, even now, of real commitments and agreements on the dramatic actions that we all, as politicians and as people, have to face up to, but increasingly the mood music is not as positive  as we would all like to see. Sadly I hae ma doots, as  they say.
Consequently, although I will mainly be speaking to Lords amendment 29, I must highlight once again my disappointment at the sheer length of time this Bill has taken to get near the statute book. It is pretty shameful that it likely will not receive Royal Assent before COP26, the largest and most important conference of its kind in the world, and the largest and most important conference that the UK has ever hosted. There are still too many areas in which the Government continue to drag their heels. Here we are, scrambling to get this Bill through Parliament a few days before hosting the most important climate conference to date. What a way to show the rest of the world that the UK Government have their priorities in order.
I am disappointed that the Government continue to consider that the Ministry of Defence and the activities of the armed forces, of national security and of tax and spending are exempt from proper scrutiny, particularly when so much of our land and sea are affected by those activities. My own research, for example, found a pretty shameful safety record on the nuclear sites located in Scotland. That could well have impacted on the local environment, but it will clearly continue to be difficult to measure how effective the MOD is with regard to its environmental responsibilities.
I am also disappointed that England has not yet followed Scotland’s lead on a deposit return scheme and is so far behind on implementing one. Litter knows no borders, particularly on our shared coastline, as we know. This really matters.
The Government have taken a very relaxed attitude to the extensive number of munitions dumps scattered around our shores, which apparently do not need to be regularly checked. I point hon. Members to the decades it took to get the MOD to accept responsibility for the clean up of radioactive particles from the beach at Dalgety Bay in Fife for a further understanding of why we in Scotland do not think those exemptions should continue. As I understand it, exemptions were not part of the Climate Change Act 2008, so why are they part of this legislation?
I have made those points before, so I will leave it there. As I have said many times, this Bill is principally concerned with English environmental issues. I am heartened by many of the amendments made in the other place, many of which we already observe in Scotland, including Lords amendment 3 requiring air  quality measurements to be in accordance with WHO guidance. Although this Bill is properly a matter for English MPs to decide, I wish Opposition Members well in their efforts to retain many of the Lords amendments within this legislation.
Although those few aspects of the Bill that affect Scotland had previously received legislative consent from the Scottish Government, we now see that the UK Government have inserted Lords amendment 29 into the Bill without seeking consent from the Scottish Government. They were not even consulted on that change. Despite the grave concerns and objections expressed from Scotland since then about this move, the UK Government have clearly simply doubled down on pushing it through. So this Bill, like many post-Brexit Bills, which at first sight might appear to be centred on English-only areas, must be partly looked at through the lens of devolution.
In this Lords amendment, we see the UK Government simply not being able to help themselves. Instead of Ministers doing their jobs, focusing on the climate crisis and getting this Bill through in an appropriately urgent fashion, they have taken time out to undermine the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The UK Government could have simply included Scottish Ministers in decision making, but we are forced to go through this rigmarole instead, because, it appears, of nothing more than petty point scoring.
Surely effective environmental policy requires all of us to be working cohesively across these isles, which is why clear and consistent underlying principles are so important. They guide the actions of law makers and  let the public know where we are going. The Scottish Government’s environmental guiding principles in the continuity Act, passed last year, underpin the environmental actions of the Scottish Government in a UK outside the EU. They are also meant to apply to UK Ministers in their reserve strategy. Lords amendment 29 contradicts the continuity Act by disapplying Scottish environmental principles and, yet again, undermining devolution. I have to say I cannot help but view the interference from this place in a devolved area, inserting an amendment to alter an Act already agreed to by the Scottish Parliament, as a hostile action. Reaching legislative fingers into legislation already passed by the Scottish Parliament, agreed to by the Scottish Labour party at the time, among others in that Parliament, and retrospectively altering that intention seems a deliberate, provocative and aggressive act. It clearly negates a decision made by our Scottish Parliament in a devolved area that should apply in all circumstances where actions impact on Scotland, whether they relate to a reserved area or not.  I will be pressing Lords amendment 29 to a vote, and I hope others can support us against this infringement on devolved powers. I call on the UK Government to do all they can to deliver this Environment Bill in a way that is fit for purpose while also respecting devolution and the democratically elected Government in Scotland. It really is not as difficult as they imagine.
If this UK Government’s post-Brexit leadership hints at what is to come, I do not feel positive about environmental protections. I cannot put it better than the Institute for Public Policy Research report, which called the UK Government’s commitments to environmental standards “considerably weaker than expected”. The EU is one of the world’s leading bodies in the fight against climate  change and our departure from it leaves us open to backsliding on environmental policy. As a member of the EU, the UK Government were being held to account and forced to match the EU’s high standards. Brexit threatens that. This Bill, unlike the Scottish Government’s EU continuity Act, does not include a non-regression clause.
The Bill states:
“The Secretary of State must report on developments in international environmental protection legislation which appear to the Secretary of State to be significant.”
That is not good enough. The climate crisis is too critical an issue for us to rely on the whims of one parliamentarian alone and keep our fingers crossed that they do the right thing. One Minister’s idea of a significant development may well not be another’s. It is also worth reminding ourselves that if the UK Government fail to match EU environmental standards and this affects trade or investment, the EU would legally be well within its rights to introduce proportionate measures, including tariffs, in response. The UK Government claim that they do not need to formally maintain EU rules because they will going even bigger and better, but can they be trusted to maintain EU standards now that no one is looking over their shoulder? When I was reading through the record of the debates in the other place, I was struck by what seemed a pretty obvious mistrust of Government assurances that extensive parliamentary scrutiny in itself would be sufficient to address the clear misgivings on the Government’s intentions in regard to this Bill. We all have bitter experience of the promises made by this Government about, for example, the scrutiny of trade deals, with the promised permanent Trade and Agriculture Commission still to be formed, despite trade deals apparently being under discussion around the world. It was therefore interesting to note the suspicion expressed by their lords and ladyships, which led them to vote on and agree the large number of amendments we are considering.
Scotland has the strongest climate targets in the UK and we lead the way in tree planting, the decarbonisation of public transport and, as I mentioned, matching WHO standards on air pollution. Environmental policy is all-encompassing and must be a chief consideration when we make energy, transport, investment and planning policies. It cannot be treated as an afterthought, with us working out merely how to implement the bare minimum of standards. The Scottish Government lead the way in environmental action in the UK and are truly committed to fighting climate change and environmental damage. I urge the House to consider this matter and vote for the removal of Lords amendment 29 from the Bill.

Bob Neill: I am sure that all of us who were friends of David Amess and James Brokenshire appreciate what has been said today from the Opposition Benches.
I wish to concentrate, briefly, on Lords amendment 3. I very much agree with the speech by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and I am grateful for what he said. I appreciate the intentions of the Minister and the Government, but I must confess that I have a nagging concern about the removal of an amendment without putting something firmer, by way of action, in its place.
Let me explain my reasons. First, I can see that if we are to have a target, it must be achievable, and I can well believe that for targets as ambitious as those in the amendment to be achievable we must take the public with us, which implies not just consultation but a much greater degree of transparency on the data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex  (Sir Bernard Jenkin) indicated, along with an honest conversation with the public about the sort of choices and changes that may be involved. I fear that if we do not do that, we will not take the public with us in the way that we ought to. The sooner that process starts, the better—frankly, it should be starting now.
Some of us are aware of the scientific data and modelling on these matters, and that presents important issues with which we must grapple, but it is not good enough that we know; we also have to be frank with the British public about what is involved. I hope that Ministers will use the time available to do that in a—I am tempted to say aggressive—vigorous and focused fashion. We should not just have a nice conversation about it but get it out there and make sure that all the available means of making the public aware are used to the full.
Secondly, I accept that for legal obligations to be any use, they ought to be realistically enforceable. I can see some difficulties with what might be achieved and why the Government might have some qualms about writing some of the specifics into the Bill, but it is already a long time since the coroner’s report on the tragic case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, or Ella’s case, as it is often known. That case happened not a million miles away from my constituency. The south London coroner who heard that inquest deals with inquests in my constituency as well. It happened in the neighbouring borough. My constituents use the South Circular Road, which the coroner found—I have no reason to dispute the finding—was the key cause of the pollution that caused Ella’s death. Indeed, it is almost within a stone’s throw of some parts of my constituency, so the issues are absolutely real for us as well. I can think of schools in my constituency, such as Valley Primary School in Bromley, that are right by a heavily-trafficked road, so I can understand the concerns of the parents there just as much as the parents in Lewisham and elsewhere.
A hotspots policy is important, then. Of course, the Minister is right that local authorities have the means to implement policies, and the London Borough of Bromley has done so—it has brought in local policies in both Bromley town and the Shortlands area—but there are issues. The level of pollution in urban areas such as Greater London, which after all runs across and does not acknowledge borough boundaries—never mind London borough and country boundaries—requires more funding and certainly more targeted funding. I come back to the point that I made in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. We need to have, if not a taskforce, a mechanism to pull together and drive greater co-ordination and focus of the various agencies and pots of funding that are currently available. If I had a sense that that was going to be tackled without waiting till October—if that was going to be put in place while we do the consultation—I would be happier about removing the amendment, which is not perfect in itself, but does at least have the benefit of holding Ministers’ feet to the fire. It is what Ministers  do when this goes back to the other place that matters—what assurances we can be given that we will tackle this as a matter of urgency.
When a coroner issues a prevention of further deaths letter, it is not done lightly. I would have hoped, as both a Minister and a Back Bencher, that there would be prompt and urgent action when a letter is issued. The consultation is fine. I do not doubt the Minister’s intentions, but I urge her to put a bit more flesh on the bones as to what we will do while the consultation is taking place to deal with areas that are of genuine concern to my constituents. People recognise that we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but, equally, they want things to happen sooner rather than later because their children and families are still breathing in a degree of air which, as the Minister says, is unacceptable. As she rightly says, no level of PM2.5 pollution is actually safe. It is a real problem not just in the inner cities, but in many other suburban and urban areas—smaller towns as well as the larger cities—and I hope that we will have a little more on that from the Government.

Hilary Benn: I join colleagues in sending our love, prayers and thoughts to the families of David Amess and James Brokenshire on their terrible loss.
I want briefly to talk about the office for environmental protection and say why I hope the House will support Lords amendment 31. The OEP is the answer to the question. It is at the heart of the Bill. Having left the European Union, everyone asked themselves, “Who is going to oversee the enforcement of environmental law?” and the Government have come up with the OEP, which we all support. On many occasions, in answer to the question, “Who will ensure that these targets are met?”—for example, that on halting species’ decline—the reply from Ministers has been, “The office for environmental protection”.
Ministers have repeatedly said, as the Minister has again today, that they support the independence of the OEP, including in enforcement, yet they want the power to issue guidance to it about the way in which it enforces its responsibilities. I simply say that the great still unanswered question in this particular debate about the Bill is; why do the Government want this power?
When Lord Goldsmith was debating this in the other place, he said that
“a guidance power is necessary to help ensure that the OEP continues to carry out its functions as intended.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 880.]
That sentence is laden with meaning. We could say that it contains a touch of gentle warning. We could argue that it suggests that the Government are not wholly confident that the OEP will go about its work in the way that Ministers intended, because they want to be able to issue guidance about the way in which it does its job. I simply say that, having looked at the debates in the Lords and heard what the Minister had to say today, I still have not heard an answer as to why this guidance power is required. In practice, could the OEP ignore such guidance? We do not actually know what the guidance would contain, and I am not aware that Ministers have given a single example of what they would try to say in such guidance.
Other public bodies have very important functions. For example, as far as I am aware, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is not subject to similar guidance from Ministers about the way in which it carries out its work. Ministers have said that it is not about direction, but it is about accountability. Could someone explain to me exactly what the difference is between the two things? I am not sure that I see a difference and nor did the Lords in the other place. That is why I think we should stick with what is contained in Lords amendment 31.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt this debate, but colleagues may or may not be aware that, this week of all weeks, there is now a demonstration in Parliament Square involving Piers Corbyn. The people there have erected a gallows—gallows to be used against Members of Parliament. I would suggest that at the very least it is not only crass and unthinking, but that it must also be a breach of public order. I simply rise to ask whether there is anything that can be done about it.

Hilary Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has raised this matter, because I saw that set of gallows as I was coming into the House today and I spoke to the police outside the gates. I said, “I don’t know who the protestors are; I couldn’t see. If they are protesting against capital punishment in other countries, good luck to them, but if they have put that gallows and that noose there, directed at us, especially given the events of the last week, it is not only crass—that is a very gentle description of what they have done—but scandalous.” The police officer to whom I spoke said, “Well, we could go over and have a word with them.” It is not acceptable, because it is a threat. We should be able to carry out our job without being threatened by people out in Parliament Square. I hope that the House authorities might be able to follow up the point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for their points of order, and completely understand the concerns that have been expressed. I also understand that the authorities have been informed by the Speaker’s Office about the situation. Mr Speaker has also informed me that there may be a statement later if necessary and that these issues would be covered in it. I suggest that we leave it at that. Thank you.

Aaron Bell: I associate myself with the points of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). May I also briefly pay tribute to Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire for all their many decades of combined public service? I think it is fair to say that in both cases, it was always service with a smile.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. I rise to speak to Lords amendment 3, as did the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). A number of my constituents have understandably raised  this amendment with me, given the terrible experience that we are still having in Newcastle-under-Lyme with the emissions from Walley’s Quarry. It is clear from the experience of my constituents, particularly those nearest to the quarry in Silverdale, Knutton and Poolfields, that poorer air quality has a profound effect on the physical and mental health of a community. The predominant concern with landfill gas is obviously hydrogen sulphide, but there is also methane, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, which is the source of the amendment.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow)—the previous waste Minister—for her engagement on this issue throughout. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for her engagement and for coming to Newcastle-under-Lyme. This is not a party political matter and it has not been treated as such in the community; it is a matter of justice for the residents who are suffering so terribly. I welcome the new waste Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her place, and thank her for her promised visit to Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I am sure will be arranged shortly through her diary.
Lords amendment 3 would require the PM2.5 air quality target to be less than 10 micrograms per cubic metre before 1 January 2030 and to,
“so far as practicable, follow World Health Organization guidelines”.
I firmly believe that we must improve air quality in all its senses as soon as possible, but I thank the Department for its engagement on the issue. Like the Chair of the Select Committee, I accept the Government’s view on the amendment—that is, that rushing to put targets in Bills in unwise and consultation is needed. I think that consultation is needed for two reasons. First, any target needs to be fully evidenced and deliverable, because, as we have already seen experienced elsewhere, there is not much point putting targets into law that we do not think can be delivered. Secondly, the target has to be widely accepted by the public and business. We have to take our constituents with us on all elements of this agenda. We saw yesterday with the heat and buildings strategy that a number of people are not that willing to make the sacrifices that might need to be made. That is why the Government have to take into account the sacrifices and changes that we are going to ask people to make if we are to make our lives greener and better.
As DEFRA’s own report after a workshop on modelling PM2.5 concentrations says, there is quite a lot of difficulty in accurately modelling where we are going to be five or 10 years from now on a range of different policy scenarios in relation to emissions reductions. It is clear that the vast majority of the country will be well below the 10 microgram per cubic metre limit, but the report also identifies that primary emissions of fine particulate matters in urban areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will remain an important factor. There is considerable uncertainty on the future trajectory, but it might mean removing up to half of all cars from roads, including electric vehicles, as well as potentially a ban on solid fuel burning. This may be what some Opposition Members think is necessary, but it would be a very significant  change to our way of life. It would necessitate action from all parts of society—individuals, businesses and public bodies—to manage that transition. It is not something that should be taken lightly and without due consideration. We have to take our constituents with us on these things, rather than putting impressive-sounding but unachievable targets into law.
All that said, I do welcome the Government’s commitment, as the Minister said, to a swift and thorough consultation on these matters. I hope that as part of the target-setting process she promised will take place in the coming months, sufficient consideration will be given not only to health in the literal sense but to mental health and a wider sense of wellbeing in terms of air quality. The experience we have had in Newcastle-under-Lyme is not just that there has been an effect on people’s physical health, particularly on those with pre-existing conditions, but that living with the odour has definitely impacted my residents’ mental health, and again it has been worse for those with pre-existing conditions.

Tim Loughton: I was going to speak on the targets issue but in the face of the time available I am not. On the question of air quality, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Without wanting to over-egg it, there is an issue about the lack of monitoring equipment. In my own authority, it turns out that the air quality monitoring equipment in certain areas has not been functioning properly for the past three years; it has been giving out false readings. It is really important that we have quality data that people can have confidence in so that we can take them with us that air quality is actually improving. Perhaps, through him, the Minister can take that on board.

Aaron Bell: I thank my hon. Friend. I could not agree more about data. I used to work in data before I was in this place. My experience with landfill was that once we got the monitoring stations around there, people would start to have more faith in the data. It is still not real-time and that needs to be addressed. However, I appreciate that that is not speaking directly to the amendment, and I think Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to wrap up.
When the Minister does the consultation, I ask her to look more broadly at the issues of odour and hydrogen sulphide, as well as limits on those, and perhaps to look at some of the suggestions I made in the ten-minute rule Bill on odorous emissions in the previous Session. What we have gone through in Newcastle-under-Lyme is an exemplar because it is about something people can smell rather than something they are breathing. There are lessons for us to learn from that and lessons that DEFRA can take forward in its consultation.

Rosie Winterton: I would just like to inform the House, further to the points of order raised previously, that I understand that the gallows has been taken down and arrests have been made under the Public Order Act.

Tim Farron: I am pleased to hear that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me also say a quick word about James Brokenshire and Sir David Amess. First, their families can be assured of my ongoing prayers for them in the months ahead.  We talk about the importance of disagreeing well. Sometimes we think that means that we have to agree and be all mushy and all think the same things. The great thing about Sir David and James is that they held really firm convictions but were able to hold them with grace and kindness. There is a little lesson for all of us in that. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her engagement on this Bill and how open and accessible she has been. It has been a lengthy affair, but that applies very recently as well, and I thank her for it.
I will quickly rattle through three bits of the Bill: first, the World Health Organisation target set out in Lords amendment 3. As we head out on this new adventure outside the European Union, the aim should be to have higher standards, or at least standards as high as those that we set as members of that union, but it looks as though we are going for those that are lower, and that is very regrettable.
We have already heard about the enormous health impact of poor air quality, and it is not just in big cities. In Kendal—in my community and on the edge of the Lake District—Lowther Street has been rated as one of the 200 most polluted streets in the United Kingdom. It is everywhere that this issue matters. We know the impact on asthma, on lung function and on people being hospitalised for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. Sadly, we heard accurately about the appalling impact and the loss of life, particularly of Ella, but also of thousands of others each year. I do not see why the Government, much as I respect what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said, would set themselves unambitious targets that they could achieve when they could set harder targets that would be more of a challenge. The Government should not be disagreeing with Lords amendment 3.
I also want to speak to the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28. That amendment was put forward in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter. I will not support the Government motion, because it is bizarre that Defence and Treasury Ministers are effectively exempt from having to have due regard to environmental principles while making policies. When the Government scrapped the Department of Energy and Climate Change, many of us thought that was an inexcusable move, but the weak excuse that the Government used was, “All Departments should have due regard for the environment and climate change, not just one, that is why we are getting rid of the Department of Energy and Climate Change.” If that is the case, why are the Government exempting two of the most important Departments?
Perhaps the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are the Departments that will find it hardest to take into account environmental policies in their decision making, but that is all the more reason to force them to do it. We cannot say that climate change is an existential threat on the one hand and on the other give major Departments a cop-out.
Moving on, Lords amendments 31 and 33 relate to the office for environmental protection. Here we have a new regulator clearly and demonstrably weaker and less independent than the one that it is to replace. That is obviously a backward step, and there is no denying it. However much the Government may have improved  things from a weaker position to start off with, we are nowhere near what we have let go. We have an office for environmental protection that is too weak to enforce and too compromised to be trusted. The courts will be limited, as we know, in the sanctions they impose. The work of the office for environmental protection can be directed by Government, as we have been hearing, which is a case of the Government deciding whether the regulator can mark its homework. Clause 24 of the Bill gives DEFRA the power to issue guidance to the OEP on how it should enforce environmental law against DEFRA and other public bodies. It is clear that that is not full independence as promised. It is a step back from the situation we currently have.
My final point is that it is odd to say the least—very peculiar—that the office for environmental protection, in seeking to enforce environmental standards in this country, will not have power to assess the impact on the United Kingdom’s environmental standards of trade deals with other countries. Deals that permit imports produced with lower environmental and animal welfare standards will undercut and ruin British farmers and will lead to lower standards here, too.
This is a long overdue Bill, yet within it, there are so many things that are left to be desired. This is such an important set of issues that to come here with a Bill that leaves us with standards lower and less well enforced than we had beforehand, with a regulator less independent than the one we had before, is clearly a backward step.

Geraint Davies: I rise briefly to support Lords amendment 3, which would put legally binding World Health Organisation limits of 10 micrograms per cubic metre into law now. The arguments that have been put in place against that—that we might have some other target in October 2022—are fine, but let us have a minimum standard now. Nearly a year is a long time when we have a target to be achieved by 2030 and we can focus rational expectations.
We know that 64,000 people are dying a year. We know that globally it is 8.7 million. We know we are hosting COP26. We profess to be global Britain. My view is that this measure ticks all the Government’s ambitions and boxes. The Government talk about NHS prevention and limiting the amount of money spent on the NHS. The Royal College of Physicians says that the cost of air pollution is £20 billion a year. The World Health Organisation says it costs £60 billion a year in lost productivity and NHS costs. If we are serious about increasing productivity, we should improve air quality standards. In terms of value, if we saved even £3 billion of the £20 billion—on the lower number—we could invest that in a stream that would generate an investment of about £300 billion in capital for green infrastructure to head towards net zero.
We have talked about the problem with dementia, which is massively related to air quality, and an incremental increase in PM2.5 can increase mental health hospital admissions by a third. We have heard from the Government about levelling up, but we know that air quality particularly hits the poorest and the most diverse areas. Having a cap of 10 micrograms would make a lot of difference to levelling up.
We have talked about pathways and how we will get there without getting rid of cars and wood burners. We need to devolve power to local authorities to give them  responsibility. Frankly, the situation is that wood burners generate 38% of PM2.5 and 2.5 million people have them. In urban environments, we need to stop selling them and phase them out. We may have to compensate people. Otherwise, we will never hit those targets and the targets will get away from us.
We certainly do not want the Government to have an ambition to double the amount of incineration by 2030, which they have. The latest incinerator in north London will generate 700,000 tonnes of carbon a year, as well as ultra-fine particulates that will give rise to leukaemia. We need to get our act together. We have the opportunity. People such as Stephen Holgate are already saying that they want a guiding light of 10 micrograms. We have heard the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, who died at the age of nine and would be 17 now—that is how long we have been waiting after her death, despite knowing that she died of air pollution. Of course, we also need an office for environmental protection that has teeth, as there is currently in the EU.
In a nutshell, people have the right to clean air and the Government have a duty to deliver on that right. Let us get on with it and do it now.

Caroline Lucas: I start by adding my voice to that of others who have paid tribute to Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. I knew neither of them really, but I can see how much I missed in not knowing them. They sound like they were absolutely the very best of us and I send my love and thoughts to their families. My heart goes out to them.
This Bill is meant to be a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation. It has been described by the Government at various times as a flagship or a lodestar, and it is about time it started to live up to that kind of rhetoric, given that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world with 15% of its species now threatened with extinction. With that in mind, I welcome the improvements that have been made to the Bill in the other place, many of which address issues that have been raised repeatedly in both Houses. I also welcome the amendments that have been tabled by the Government to set legally binding targets to halt the decline of nature.
The Bill has a very long history: it was first proposed in 2018, has been repeatedly delayed and, last year, was absent from Parliament for more than 200 days. I urge the Government not to now create further delays and to accept these crucial amendments from the other place to make the Bill law before COP26. That is the kind of leadership that people are looking for from the country that will host that key meeting.
On Lords amendment 1, which requires the Prime Minister to
“declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally”,
I am utterly dumbfounded that the Government cannot agree to it. They may argue that it does not meaningfully change the Bill, which may be the case, but it is none  the less incredibly symbolically important. With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report spelling a “code red for humanity” with 1 million species now threatened with extinction, we know that an emergency is upon us.
As Lord Deben said in the other place, refusing to accept this amendment
“will send the wrong signal, at a time when we should be united in sending the right signals, so that in all discussions people will know precisely where Britain stands.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 618.]
I therefore urge the Government to rethink their position and to listen to the scientists raising the alarm, to the young people on the streets worried for their future, and to the parliamentarians in this House. There are now less than two weeks until COP26 and if the UK is serious about demonstrating leadership, rejecting this amendment just seems so contrary to what we need to see—so perverse.
Soils and air are the very substance of what the Bill is about. Lords amendment 2, tabled by my noble Friend—I do not often get to say that—Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, sets soil health and quality as a priority area for long-term target setting. Soils, as we know, are the complex ecosystems upon which all life on this beautiful planet relies. A staggering 25% of the world’s biodiversity lives in our soil. Britain’s soils alone store almost 10 billion tonnes of carbon. It is not simply dirt that can endlessly be abused and neglected; it is life itself. Its health is absolutely essential if the UK is to succeed in achieving its climate and biodiversity targets, yet we lose more than 3 million tonnes of topsoil every year in the UK. In its recent independent assessment of the UK climate risk, three of the Climate Change Committee’s eight urgent priorities relate to the impacts of the climate crisis on soils, and just today a new report was published that identifies poor soil health as a threat to national security.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to publish a new soil health action plan for England to ensure that soils are sustainably managed by 2030. That is desperately needed, but I am concerned that the draft outline will not even be consulted on until next spring. It is also positive to hear that the Government are exploring the possibility of a new target on soil health under future Environment Bill regulations, yet soil health merits proper referencing and legal protection through this Bill to take it beyond one Parliament. When our  soils are rapidly degrading, we need that target now, so  I urge Ministers to review their decision on Lords amendment 2.
Many hon. Members have spoken very eloquently about Lords amendment 3 on air pollution, and I would simply echo what others have said about the perversity of this. At a time when the WHO has just slashed the guideline limit for air pollution, the fact that we are refusing even to bring ourselves in line with the current—out-of-date—pollution target just seems to be incredibly perverse. Everyone has the right to clean air, as others have said, and we should be acting on it.

Tan Dhesi: On tackling air pollution, does the hon. Member not agree that, to take people off road and on to rail, it is about time the Government built the western rail link to Heathrow? It would benefit people not only in my Slough constituency, but in the south-west, Wales and the west. That is  the only way because if we are serious about tackling the climate crisis, rather than just talking about it—the Government committed to it in 2012, but have still not yet dug a single spade—it is about time that we moved forward on these transport infrastructure projects.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and if people are travelling to Heathrow, I would far rather that they went by train than that they drove, so to that extent I would certainly agree with him.
Interim targets are obviously needed to achieve the long-term targets in the Bill. It is extraordinary for the Minister somehow to feel that there is some kind of contradiction between interim targets and long-term targets. They are not in contradiction with one another. The interim targets mark the progress towards the long-term targets, so to hear her oppose those seemed very odd. Baroness Brown of Cambridge put it very clearly in the other place when she said that
“it is easier to predict the impact of actions to support such systems over a five-year timescale than it is to predict outcomes in 15 or 20 years”,
and that
“evidence shows the effectiveness of the combination of statutory interim targets and a legislated long-term goal.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 841.]
I would press upon the Minister that these two ideas are not in contradiction.
I would like to speak briefly in support of Lords amendment 28, which would, like amendment 1 that I tabled on Report, ensure that the MOD and the Treasury—and, indeed, anyone spending resources within Government —are not, rather perversely, excluded from having to consider the environmental principles. These five principles should be the very cornerstone of our environmental law, so it is deeply concerning that time and again the Government seek to put these Departments beyond reach. As the Minister is well aware, the Ministry of Defence owns significant amounts of land, including a third of our sites of special scientific interest, and protecting and restoring these areas will be absolutely essential if the Government are to deliver on the leaders’ pledge for nature to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. Essentially, when we know that just 3% or 4% of land is effectively managed for nature and that so many protected sites are in an unfavourable condition, we absolutely need action on that.
The exclusion of the Treasury is, if anything, of even more concern. If we ever needed a lesson on that, we have seen in the last few weeks how there appears to have been a battle between No. 10 and the Treasury over some key decisions when it comes to the heat and buildings strategy or the net zero strategy. Sadly, it looks as if the Treasury has won, because we are not seeing the finance behind those plans that we should. We are seeing things such as the continuing freezing of fuel duty since 2010, which is directly responsible for emissions being up to 5% higher than they would otherwise have been. I urge the Minister to look again at including the Treasury in this provision. Again, it seems very perverse to leave it out.
Lords amendment 31 would strengthen the independence of the office for environmental protection, which is essential if we are to have the strong watchdog we have been promised. When Ministers control the OEP’s board and budget, it is entirely inappropriate for it then also to be bound to consider their guidance on enforcing breaches of environmental law. I fear that such guidance, if coming from someone who controls the purse strings, will feel an awful lot more like an insistence than some gentle suggestions. The OEP needs to be brought in line  with the approach taken to other agencies that enforce breaches of the law, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office. I do not see any reason why it should be treated differently.
Finally, Lords amendment 33, on environmental review remedies, would ensure that the interests of those accused of breaching environmental law, such as a developer or a fossil fuel company, were not favoured above the environment itself. Put simply, the court must be able to remedy breaches of environmental law. In opposing that amendment, I fear the Government have undermined the role of the OEP, which is meant to be a world-leading body to give the environment a voice and hold the powerful to account.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for her earlier comments about Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. I have not had an opportunity to say anything, but in my 29 and a half years in politics, this has been one of the toughest weeks for Parliament. I know we will all miss both Sir David and James, as we loved them so dearly. Thank you for your comments—I appreciate that.

Florence Eshalomi: I, too, rise to support Lords amendment 3. My Vauxhall constituency, just across the river, is the start of the congestion charging zone, and it contains some of  the most polluted roads in the country. Data from the Taskforce for Lung Health found that background levels of PM2.5 in Lambeth were more than 25% higher than the 10 microgram per metre cubed recommended limit. In some areas of Vauxhall, PM2.5 levels are nearly  50% higher than that target. The taskforce also found that nearly 7% of deaths in Lambeth were linked to that issue, with devastating impacts on every age group.
We have all mentioned Ella Kissi-Debrah, who was just nine when she died as a result of severe asthma, which was induced and exacerbated by air pollution. She was hospitalised 28 times in 28 months, and last year she became the first person to have air pollution listed as a cause of death. My constituents in Vauxhall cannot wait any longer, and they keep putting themselves at risk because of that difficult air pollution. The roads putting them at risk are the roads they must use to access shops and amenities, or to get to work, school or play, whether by foot, bike, bus or scooter. They are the roads that people, including me, must send their children along to school every day.
Last week, I visited St Anne’s Primary School in my constituency, which was identified by the Mayor of London as one of the 50 schools in the most polluted areas of London. Although it was good to visit that school it was also quite sad, because during the visit the headteacher showed me a state-of-the-art living wall that is using vegetation to protect the children from all the air pollution coming from the main roads. Such innovations are impressive, but why must schools take such measures to protect our young children? That is not right.
The Government have said that they will consult between January and October next year on air quality targets, but how many more targets do we need? The  data is there. The data is choking us—no pun intended. It already exists. We know from a 2018 report by UNICEF that the effects of air pollution are more serious for children than for adults. We know from data released last week by City Hall that the areas with the highest levels of deprivation, or those with a higher proportion of people from non-white backgrounds, are more likely to be exposed to high levels of air pollution. We have the tools at our disposal to set that target, so why can we not do so now? As the mother of a 4-year-old and a 6-year-old living in an inner-London borough, I do not want my children growing up with that pollution, nor do I want the children and young people I represent in Vauxhall to continue to grow up with such high levels of pollution. Let us set that target once and for all, bring an end to this, and bring

Kerry McCarthy: I very much echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) said about air pollution. Earlier, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), mentioned that the Mayor of Bristol had spoken of the M32 going right into the heart of the city. It is the border between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). It goes through those inner-city areas, and we know that children living in those areas are particularly at risk.
When we have discussed that in various Select Committees and during the passage of Bills, I have found the Minister’s attempted justification for not adopting the World Health Organisation targets very weak, and I am afraid that the same is true today. Surely people’s right to have a log-burning stove is more than outweighed by the fact that there are 40,000 deaths a year because of air pollution. Surely that is far more important. However, other Members have more than done justice to the need to back the Lords on their air pollution amendments, so I want to talk briefly about Lords amendment 1, which has not been spoken about much.
There is no question but that we are in the midst of climate and ecological emergencies that simply are not being taken seriously enough, not just by the Government but by many others who, through their actions, are contributing to the problem and not helping to find solutions. I am usually quite sceptical about the value of grand declarations if they are not backed up by action—and often they are not backed up by action—but I think that formal recognition in the Bill of the gravity of the situation could make a difference.
We have led the way on that in Bristol. We formally declared a climate emergency in 2018 and a biodiversity emergency in February last year. As a result, we have a wide-ranging “one city” ecological emergency strategy, which serves as a blueprint for action on that front. Really, that is what it is about—not just making the declaration, but using that declaration as a way of stressing the urgency and driving action.
I support the Lords amendments on the office for environmental protection. The Bill should have been in force, and the OEP ready for action, for the end of the Brexit transition period. There is just no excuse for the  Government’s delays and prevarications—or, it has to be said, for their reneging on their promise to base the OEP in Bristol, which I will not stop reminding them about. We have ended up with precisely the sort of governance gap that many of us warned about, which is shameful. However, now that we are where we are, we ought to accept the Lords amendments, which would ensure that the OEP is independent in nature, that it is able to properly hold Ministers to account for environmental wrongdoing, and that it has control over its own budget.
Finally, the fact that we are so far away from meeting our environmental obligations on air pollution, water quality—I think that will come up in the next group of amendments—and protection of biodiversity only reinforces the case for a strong OEP and more accountability for Ministers. However, there is nothing in the Bill to compel Ministers to act early to meet targets or take action where interim targets are missed. We have these long-term targets way into the future—we have a 25-year environment plan—but if we do not have binding interim targets, it is so easy to kick things into the long grass and say that we are working towards a date at some distant point in the future. We then find that that distant point in the future is suddenly upon us and nothing has been done to ensure that we reach the targets.
Lords amendment 12 would ensure that there are binding interim targets in the Bill, which is so important for our ability to hold the Government to account and to see incremental change that will get us to our final ambition. That needs to be kept in the Bill.

Rebecca Pow: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. May I reiterate the condolences that have been expressed? I was not able to be in the Chamber earlier. I have not worn my environmental leaf suit today, as a mark of respect to those two great men—Sir David Amess, who did so much on animal welfare, which is very relevant to my Department, and James Brokenshire. I think we all feel the same about them. We are proud to have known them, and we send our condolences to their families. I am terribly sorry.
I thank all hon. Members across the House for their contributions. As ever, whatever our differences, we listen to what has been said and work very closely together on these matters. I will whizz through some of the questions and comments that were raised before summing up.
Let me refer first to the comments by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), just to get the devolution issue clarified. She talked about this Government not respecting the Scottish Government. The power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate respects the exercising of reserved functions by Ministers of the Crown. That was tested recently in the Supreme Court, which agreed with the Government. That judgment by the Supreme Court directly supports Lords amendment 29, tabled by the Government.

Deidre Brock: rose—

Rebecca Pow: I am going to leave it there, because I have so many comments to get through.
I want to refer now to particular questions and comments raised about the OEP. We heard some comparisons with the EU, in particular from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron),  with whom we have had some very constructive discussions, as he said—I thank him for those comments. The OEP’s enforcement powers are different but will operate more effectively than those of the European Commission. The OEP will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question—that does not happen with the European Commission—to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a more timely and targeted manner.
On environmental review, the OEP can apply for judicial review remedies, such as mandatory quashing orders, subject to appropriate safeguards. That will work to ensure compliance with environmental law. The Court of Justice of the EU cannot issue those kinds of remedies to member states, so we truly believe the OEP is stronger, not weaker.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned the guidance power. Paragraph 17 of schedule 1 already requires that:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
The guidance power does not grant the Secretary of State any ability to intervene in decision making about specific or individual cases. The OEP does not have to follow the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so. It has to provide its own enforcement policy. I think Dame Glenys would take issue with the idea that she is somehow heading up a weaker organisation. I do not think she would have taken on the job if she felt that that was the case.
On the biodiversity emergency, we have set a duty to set an additional legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030. If that—not to mention the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday—does not demonstrate that we understand there is an emergency I do not know what else does.
Soil was mentioned by a number of colleagues, all of whom agreed that we need data. Our soil health action plan, to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), demonstrates that we really mean business with soil. Many of our other policies will be about working on soil health. It is not just about what is in the Bill; it is about all our wider policies whereby we are taking soil health extremely seriously.
Air quality was rightly raised by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). On what is the right number for the target, I reiterate that whatever the WHO said—whether 10 micrograms per metre cubed or now five—its analysis has not and did not outline a pathway to achieve that target. That is why it is so important that we gather the evidence and the science. I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton himself pointed that out and agreed that this is the right approach. So many people today have mentioned the importance of getting the evidence and the data right.
I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, but I assure him that we are not waiting for targets to be set to tackle the problem of air pollution. We are taking action now. One example is the legislation to phase out the sale of house coal and small volumes of wet wood, and to   introduce emission standards for manufactured solid fuels for domestic burning across England. That was one of the big steps we have taken to cut down on PM2.5.

Bob Neill: I am grateful for what the Minister says. Will she meet me to discuss the sort of mechanism we were talking about, so we might get a better focus on this issue?

Rebecca Pow: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will reiterate that to the new Minister with responsibility for air quality. My hon. Friend makes good points. Many other measures are in place connected to our air quality strategy, but he may be right that they need to be pulled together in a clearer way. We acted on many of the measures on which the coroner gave us guidance after the very tragic case of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Our hearts go out to that family, and I am thankful for all the input.
Regarding amendment 1, I must reiterate that actions are what are necessary to combat the climate and biodiversity emergency, not legal declarations. On amendment 2, the soil health action plan will provide strategic direction to develop the metrics that we need for the soil health target, and I point hon. Members to the written ministerial statement on that. On amendment 3, we will continue to collaborate with experts to ensure that the consultation on air targets is based on the best evidence. In setting targets, we need to carry out detailed modelling, as I said.
Amendment 12 fundamentally undermines the long-term nature of the targets framework. It removes necessary flexibility and forces us to meet legally binding targets every five years on complex environmental issues. Regarding amendment 28, the Government firmly maintain the position that exempting some limited areas from the duty to “have due regard” provides necessary flexibility in relation to finances, defence and national security.
Turning to amendments 31 and 75, I must stress that the guidance power is required to ensure appropriate accountability for the OEP. Finally, amendment 33 is not acceptable because it removes all protections for third parties who were brought into the OEP’s process of environmental review. The Government are confident of their position on these matters and I hope that Members will support us in returning this position to the other place, so that we get our world-leading legislation onto the statute book.

Nigel Evans: Just to explain the process, I am anticipating five votes; the first vote will take 10 minutes and the others, consecutively, eight minutes, so I really would not go too far from the Lobbies. There will be three from the Labour party, one from the Lib Dems and one from the Scottish National party. If Deirdre Brock would approach the Chair while the first Division is taking place, I will explain the process for the SNP Division, because it is a bit more complicated.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Clause 2 - Environmental targets: particulate matter

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 185.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.
More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day). The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Nigel Evans: I am anticipating a vote on the next Lords amendment, and it will be eight minutes for this and every other Division in this section. I call the Minister to disagree with Lords amendment 12 formally.

Clause 4 - Environmental targets: effect

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 12.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 179.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 12 disagreed to.

Clause 18 - Policy statement on environmental principles

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 185.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 28 disagreed to.

Clause 24 - Guidance on the OEP’s enforcement policy and functions

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 31.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 180.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 31 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 31.
Lords amendment 33 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 75 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 75.
Lords amendments 4 to 11, 13 to 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 64, 69 and 70 agreed to.

After Clause 72 - Protection of pollinators from pesticides

Rebecca Pow: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 45, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 65, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 66, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.
Lords amendment 94, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 95, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 46 to 63, 71 to 74, and 91 to 93.

Rebecca Pow: As we turn to amendments focused on the protection of nature, I would like to remind the House of some of the significant changes that the Government have made to the Bill since its introduction, which I hope hon. Members support. We have extended the requirement for biodiversity net gain to cover nationally significant infrastructure projects, which ensures that new nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as new roads, railways or airports, must contribute to our vision of a nature-positive future. That will also enable the Government to extend net gain to major projects in the marine environment once a suitable approach has been developed.
We have added a power to increase the period for which habitat must be maintained beyond 30 years across the whole net gain policy. The Secretary of State must keep under review whether the period could be increased. We have made it a legal requirement for the Government to produce guidance on how local planning authorities should have regard to local nature recovery strategies.
I turn to storm overflows. All the detail that I am about to outline demonstrates an absolute commitment to tackling the environmental harm caused by storm sewage overflows, on which we have taken significant action. Lords amendment 45, the majority of which has been put forward by the Government—I urge hon. Members to look at it—introduces an entire new chapter to the Water Industry Act 1991 on storm overflows to address that. It places a statutory requirement on the Government to produce a plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows and their adverse impacts before 1 September 2022, and commits the Government to taking action and reporting on progress to Parliament. We will also be required to produce a report on the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, and their costs and benefits, before 1 September 2022.
The Bill already places a duty on water companies and the Environment Agency to publish data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis, so this is available and accessible to the public. Crucially, the Bill also  introduces a statutory requirement on sewerage companies to produce drainage and sewerage management plans, in which they will fully assess their network capacity and adopt a strategic approach to planning. This will deliver a resilient sewerage system addressing current and future risks and issues, such as population growth and climate change over a 25-year period, because we all know that those things are affecting this system.

Caroline Lucas: I certainly support the direction of Lords amendment 45. However, I want to ask the Minister why she is omitting lines 7 to 14 of the original amendment introduced by the Duke of Wellington in the other place, which would put a legal duty on water companies to take immediate action to tackle sewage pollution and so forth. Why has she taken some of the teeth out of this amendment?

Rebecca Pow: I hear what the hon. Member says, and for once I am really pleased that she almost supports what we are doing. I am outlining what we have put into the Bill since it was last here to demonstrate how we will be reducing the harm from these sewage storm overflows. The cumulative impact of all this will be to actually address the issue that we all so want to address. Crucially, we will have sewerage management plans in which water companies will have to explain and detail how they are going to be delivering a resilient sewerage system. We expect those plans to include considered actions for reducing storm overflows and their harm in line with the ambition set out in the Bill.

John Redwood: As there is a lot of concern about this on both sides of the House, can the Minister give us some encouragement about what pace of change we can look forward to under her proposals? I think people want some reassurance that this is going to be tackled quite soon.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and honestly, people are coming up to me left, right and centre about this. I feel as strongly about it as everybody else, so I am so pleased we have got this into the Bill. I have to say that a lot of it is thanks to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for—[Hon. Members: “Ludlow.”] I have been to Ludlow, but I have a lot of data in my head! I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) would agree that we have worked unbelievably constructively to get what was going to be in his private Member’s Bill into this Bill, which is absolutely the right thing to do. I hope we are demonstrating that this is happening quickly. For example, we are requiring water companies to put in monitors above and below every storm sewage overflow to monitor the data. They will have to start that right now, because the sewerage plans coming forward in the Bill are already under way.

Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that I am one of the people who keeps talking to her about this, and I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done on it. Yes, there are all these duties to report, to produce plans and so on, which is great, but should there not also be a duty on the water companies to actually do something, rather than just to report on what they have or have not achieved? If amendment (a) to Lords amendment 45  succeeds, will she consider whether it is possible to have a more tightly drawn, concise and effective duty on water companies?

Rebecca Pow: We have been speaking about this. I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, and I am listening. I am going to say that there is a dialogue, but I will leave it at that. However, there is so much more that will help with this issue, and the wider issue of water pollution, than what is in this Bill. I think he would agree that there are a lot of water issues to be dealt with that the water companies will be held to account for. One of the very strong things we are doing, which is not in the Bill, is producing our draft policy statement to Ofwat, the regulator. For the first time ever, we have put at the top of the agenda that it will have to get the water companies to address storm sewage overflows. I think we would all agree that they are necessary in an emergency, but they have been used far too frequently. I hope by all of this we are demonstrating what are doing, and that is why I am taking so long going through it. It has not started right now—well, not all of it—but when it does start, it will make a huge difference to the progressive reduction of harm.

Tan Dhesi: As has been said, it is great to hear about these plans, and we have been hearing about them for some time. Once we set aside all the blurb and the peripheral extraneous issues being outlined, are there any targets or deadlines? When will all English rivers be sewage free?

Rebecca Pow: I would argue that it is not blurb. The way we direct such changes is through policies such as these, and they will start to happen immediately. Water companies are totally aware of the policies, and through such measures we will cut down on harmful sewage storm overflows. Under the Bill we must also set a range of water targets. We have set up the storm overflows taskforce, which will report early next year on what the target should be for elimination. We will also have targets in other important areas of water quality, including phosphates, nitrates, waste water—all those areas are important and will be tackled. That is coming down the tracks imminently.

Bernard Jenkin: The Minister is bringing in a fantastic Bill, but it is sad that we are not implementing the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) brought before the House in his private Member’s Bill. They would have made it illegal to have sewage discharges after a certain date. The question “when?” is the right one, and the balancing argument is about how much it would cost, and how much it would add to consumers’ water bills. Does the Minister have that data? Do we know how much would need to be invested in each water area, and how much that would impact on bills, so that we can quantify how long it would take to do at a reasonable pace? That is what we need to know. Perhaps there will be a compromise on this issue, but at the moment I am afraid I am likely to follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby in support of the Lords amendment.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend. This is an important issue and we have thought about it. The Government will come back and report on the costs  and benefits; we are doing a whole analysis of that. As an approximate estimate, to get rid of or eliminate storm sewage overflows would cost between—these are very wide figures—£150 billion and £660 billion. One must consider the cost of bills, because there will be an impact on those. That is why I made the point earlier that a lot of other areas in connection with our rivers and our water are really important. We must also deal with those, and it must be proportionate. My hon. Friend is right, and we will soon have the data from our storm overflows taskforce, and from our duty to report on what the cost benefits would be of completely eliminating storm overflows. Such things are used far too frequently, but they are also an emergency measure that should potentially always remain, just in case we have to deal with huge floods.
Another area of work that needs to be done—we are doing it—involves levelling up and what was MHCLG but is now DLUHC, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities,. It is about sustainable development and what we do with drain water, all the rest of the water, and separating out our systems. This is a cross-departmental issue, and we are tackling some really important matters in the Bill.
The Bill also requires us to set and achieve at least one target in the priority area of water. Our policy paper, which was published in August 2020, set out the objectives for the water targets we were considering. Those include reducing pollution from agriculture, waste water, abandoned metal mines, and reducing water demand. All those issues are significant to the whole area we are talking about.
Outside the Bill, we have committed to undertaking a review of the case for implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England. That schedule would set mandatory build standards for sustainable drainage schemes on new developments, which so many people have been calling for. Those are not mandatory at the moment, but to really have an effect, they need to be. We are reviewing that and, based on what we find, we will be working with DLUHC on that very issue.
We have moved further; with Lords amendments 46, 47, and 74, we will require water companies to do near real-time reporting of storm overflows and water quality monitoring upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works so that we have fully transparent data. People called for transparency of data in the debate on the previous group of amendments, and we will have it in relation to the impact of those things on our waters.
The first part of Lords amendment 45, new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991, was introduced in the other place by the Duke of Wellington and seeks to place a duty on sewerage undertakers to progressively reduce the harm from storm overflows and to ensure compliance with that duty. We have listened carefully to Parliament and, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will agree, we have moved on this matter more than anything else in the Bill. I hope that I have made clear everything that we are bringing forward.
That is not to say that we are not listening; we are. I am confident in all the things I have outlined, together with the draft policy statement for Ofwat, which states that we expect it to
“incentivise water companies to significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows.”
That is the pointer for the water companies really needing to work on this issue. I know that a group of colleagues from the Portsmouth area are banking on that. They are working with the water companies in the area on pollution issues. They have brought all the bodies together in a partnership to tackle their sewage overflow issues, and they need what is in the Bill to point them in the right direction. We have their full support, and I commend them for all the work that they are doing. There is a whole group of colleagues doing that.
We have been clear that we want to see fewer discharges of untreated sewage into rivers, lakes and seas. I am personally determined to see that happen, and I am really proud of the actions we are taking. Lines 7 to 14 of Lords amendment 45 are therefore unnecessary, and I ask the House to support amendment (a) to leave them out.

Alex Sobel: There are a number of sewage works on the River Wharfe upstream of my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore)—I see that he is in his place—and we both have bathing water quality issues because of that. It would be useful to know, using the example of Portsmouth that the Minister gave, how the Bill will help us unlock that with Yorkshire Water to ensure that people are not bathing, in effect, with effluent, which is what happens nearly every day on the River Wharfe.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was proud to be part of getting bathing water designation in Otley. It is the first inland bathing water area that we have designated—we have loads around the coast—and it was a great project. However, he makes a good point, and when we are setting targets for water quality, the bathing water quality issue will very much be part of that.
I turn to Lords amendment 43, which would require that pesticide use in Great Britain can be authorised only if a competent authority is satisfied that there will be no negative effect on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations. I am as keen a supporter of bees and pollinators as anyone else here; I garden for wildlife and I do not use pesticides. I listened very carefully to the debate on this issue in the other place, but I am confident that there is effective regulation of pesticides to avoid harm, including to pollinators. We have consulted on a draft national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides, which aims to minimise the risks of pesticides to human health and the environment. We will publish a final national action plan for pesticides by the end of this year. Central to the plan will be support for integrated pest management. We are supporting a shift towards greater use of IPM techniques. IPM involves designing pesticides out of farming systems as far as possible and includes increased use of nature-based, low toxicity solutions and precision technologies to manage pests, all of which will benefit pollinators.
Our wider action under the national pollinator strategy includes restoring and creating habitats for pollinators to thrive, raising awareness across society so that people can take action themselves; and supporting monitoring and research to improve our understanding.

Jim Shannon: I just have a very quick question. It is important that the farming sector and the industry understand pesticides and co-operation in farming, as that happens every day. What discussions has the Minister had with the National Farmers Union, for example, to work alongside it and ensure it does not have any issues?

Rebecca Pow: We work incredibly closely with our farmers. We could not do any of what we are trying to do without bringing our farmers on board. After all, they manage, own or run at least 70% of the land. Many are already doing good really work on integrated pest management. With some of our new grants we have launched for innovation and tech in particular, we will be working with them to go further down this road, especially through our environmental land management scheme, sustainable farming incentive and so on.
Our healthy bees plan 2030 sets out how we will work with beekeepers and bee farmers to improve honeybee health, and we are improving our understanding, including by supporting a national pollinator monitoring programme. Alongside all that, current pesticide legislation requires that pesticide products and their active substances have
“no unacceptable effects on the environment…having particular regard to its impact on non-target species”
which includes impacts on bees and other effective pollinators such as hoverflies, moths and beetles. Risk assessments made for active substances are subject to public consultation and establish the key risks posed by pesticides. We continue to make decisions on pesticide use based on scientific risk assessment.
Turning to Lords amendment 65, biodiversity loss is a defining challenge for our generation and we must act now. This landmark Bill ramps up domestic action, including a requirement to set a legally binding target to halt species decline in England by 2030. The powers under clause 113 and 114 form an important part and support the ambition for domestic nature recovery. We will bring forward a nature recovery Green Paper before the end of the year, which will set out our approach  to driving nature recovery in England. It will include consideration of the scope to amend the habitats regulations, as well as broader exploration of our approach to site designations and species protections.
In adapting our approach to nature conservation, I agree we must maintain and enhance protections. The powers have been tightly drafted and already contain strong safeguards. In exercising those powers, the Secretary of State must: have regard to the particular importance of furthering the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity; be satisfied that the changes do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided currently by the habitats regulations; and test this with Parliament and secure its approval through a vote. To be satisfied that there has been no reduction in protections, the Government have also publicly committed to consulting with the office for environmental protection and Government statutory nature advisers. We also remain bound by international nature conservation law and committed to those obligations. Therefore, I see no need for the amendment and I urge the House to oppose it.
Turning to Lords amendments 94 and 95, our world-leading due diligence measures will help to tackle illegal deforestation in supply chains by prohibiting larger   businesses operating in the UK from using certain forest risk commodities, produced on land illegally occupied or used. Forest risk commodities are associated with wide-scale conversion of forest. Examples of those commodities include beef, cocoa, leather, soya, rubber and palm oil. This comes as the UK prepares to lead by example at COP26 in two weeks’ time.

Kerry McCarthy: Does the Minister not accept that legal deforestation is becoming as much of a problem as illegal deforestation? If it is deforestation per se of the Amazon, that is a bad thing. Bolsonaro is relaxing the rules in his country, and it is happening in other countries in the region as well, and as a result we are increasingly seeing products entering our supermarket supply chains that are linked to deforestation—there was a story last week about cheese being sold in UK supermarkets. That is bad regardless of whether the Government of the country authorised it or not.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady and take her point, but we have to work with other Governments to bring forward our legislation. Many of these countries—Brazil is a specific example—have protections but, in many cases, are not upholding them. This Bill will have an effect, if we can demonstrate that they are not upholding their protections and our products are coming from there. That all has to be in a transparent survey, and data has to be recorded by businesses, so the onus will actually also be on them, because they do not want to be seen to be selling products that are causing deforestation. We have worked extremely hard to get that provision into the Bill and we believe that it will help to make a difference on this issue.
Given the pioneering nature of the policy, we have included a statutory requirement for a review every two years to make sure that the policy is delivering as intended and that the things that are happening, exactly as the hon. Lady suggests, do not happen. However, conducting a review after just one year of the requirements coming into force, as the amendments require, does not provide sufficient time to understand the policy’s effectiveness.

Simon Hoare: Some months ago, my hon. Friend gave very generously of her time, with officials, to talk to my constituent Jim Bettle about the timber regulations, as she will remember. Can she say when the review of the UK timber regulations is envisaged, because that neatly ties in with what she is talking about?

Rebecca Pow: Yes. My hon. Friend’s constituent came specifically to talk about charcoal and those issues. We have our timber regulations already in place to deal with illegal deforestation. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date for any review of that, but I can get back to his office with further details, if he would like.
In simple terms, in respect of the amendments, there would be not be enough data to understand how the legislation impacts against our policy objectives in one year and businesses would just be submitting their first report on the due diligence exercise. We will instead need to focus our efforts in that vital first year on ensuring effective implementation and enforcement and making sure that regulated businesses understand and are meeting their responsibilities under this legislation. That is critical to the regulations having their intended effect.

Alex Sobel: As well as having deforestation goods enter the supply chain in the UK from the Amazon in Brazil, which is of vital importance, they are also coming from West Papua, Borneo, Indonesia and the Congo river basin, and a lot of it is legal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. We are seeking trade deals around the world. He do we ensure that businesses and Governments understand their obligations in the trade deals to ensure that we do not have further deforestation not just in Brazil, but in other countries?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Obviously, our businesses will have an obligation under what we set in our Bill, but equally, there is a whole session devoted to this at COP26, discussing exactly the issues that he raises in the wider sphere of agriculture and forestry across the globe. I urge him to follow what happens there.
On Lords amendment 66, I am very pleased to announce that we will be taking action on ancient woodland, thanks to the persuasive arguments put forward by Baroness Young of Old Scone, who has been a champion for ancient woodland, as have many Members of this House. I also put on record the Government’s thanks to the Woodland Trust for its partnership and support in updating the ancient woodland inventory. It continues to champion the need for a detailed and up-to-date inventory of this irreplaceable habitat, which is much needed; I thank the trust for stepping in to do that work. It is music to my ears particularly, because I set up the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees with the Woodland Trust when I first came to this place as a Back Bencher. I know that the Secretary of State is also passionate about ancient woodland.
I can also announce that we will undertake a review of the national planning policy framework to ensure that it is being correctly implemented in the case of ancient and veteran trees and ancient woodland. Should the review conclude that implementation can be improved, we will look to strengthen the guidance to local authorities to ensure their understanding of the protections provided to ancient woodland.
Secondly, I am pleased to announce that we will consult on strengthening the wording of the national planning policy framework to better ensure the strongest protection of ancient woodland, while recognising the complex delivery challenges for major infrastructure.
Finally, we will amend the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 alongside these reforms to require local planning authorities to consult the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if they are minded to grant planning permission for developments affecting ancient woodland.

John Redwood: Is the Minister saying that if this change goes through, another HS2-type assault on ancient woodland would not be allowed, whereas the last one was?

Rebecca Pow: What it will mean is that, yes, there will be much more credence given to the value of ancient woodland. At the moment, ancient woodland does not necessarily win, because one can have the infrastructure, or whatever it is, if one can demonstrate that there are  wholly exceptional reasons for getting rid of the ancient woodland. This approach will really strengthen the position: it is a really big commitment to ancient woodland, which is like our rainforest. We have to do something about it—and we are, which I hope will be welcomed.

Simon Hoare: Warmly welcomed.

Rebecca Pow: Thank you.
Although I must ask hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 66, I hope that they will support our approach and my announcement today, which will deliver effective action to protect our precious and irreplaceable ancient woodland.
The intention behind Lords amendment 67 is to introduce additional formality to the process for entering into conservation covenants and to require such agreements to contain specific terms. There is a balance to be struck: conservation covenants must be flexible tools and straightforward to create, but they must also be robust. It is important that they are not entered into lightly or without due consideration and forethought—sounds a bit like a marriage contract, doesn’t it?
Having reflected on concerns raised in the other place, and with particular thanks to the Earl of Devon, we acknowledge that an additional layer of formality when entering into conservation covenants would provide some reassurance to landowners. We therefore propose an amendment in lieu to require that conservation covenant agreements be executed as deeds. Government guidance in this space will also be drafted to provide clear support on the relevant formalities required for conservation covenants.
I hope that hon. Friends and Members will support our proposals. I look forward to their contributions.

Luke Pollard: Before I start, I want to send condolences and thoughts on behalf of Plymouth to Sir David Amess’s family, his staff and his community. We have seen our fair share of tragedy over the summer in Plymouth, and Plymouth stands with Southend at this time.
We are in the middle of a climate and ecological crisis, and we need bolder and more urgent action if we are to address it. When this Bill was first debated in the Commons—which seems a very long time ago, because it was—I described it as bland, a bit beige, “a bit meh”, as I put it. It does make some difference; there are some good bits in there; but it does not rise to the scale of the crisis that we are facing, and it needs to. It smacks of the dreary managerialism and the pedestrian pace that have overtaken DEFRA in recent years. I want to encourage the Ministers to find more ambition and more urgency with the measures they are introducing, which is why I want to focus now on the hard-won gains from the Lords on bees, water, habitats and trees.
I bloody love bees, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was picked up by the Evening Standard when I said it at a fringe event during the Labour party conference, and I hope it is a sentiment shared by many other Members on both sides of the House. Because we all love bees, I think it worth noting that we need proper measures to protect our pollinators. I should declare an interest at this point: my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall.
Since 1900 Britain has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species, and we risk losing more if we do not take action to protect them, in particular, from bee-killing and bee-harming pesticides. They are essential to the future of our planet, to pollinating our crops and to the rich tapestry of biodiversity that we have as a nation, but the loss of bees has become symbolic of the decline in nature in our country. Lords amendment 43 inserted a new clause to regulate pesticides, and proposed that the use of pesticides should be assessed on how they impact our pollinators. It is amazing that the impact of pesticides on pollinators is not already assessed before approvals are given. This is a simple amendment that could have a positive effect on bees, and I am disappointed that the Government do not see the value in it.
When the Bill was last here, Labour tabled an amendment to ban bee-killing pesticides, but sadly the Government whipped Tory MPs to vote against it, and I suspect that that will happen again today. The chemical approval system that Ministers seek to protect is far too secretive and not transparent enough. If it is to be robustly defended by a Government three-line whip, I urge Ministers to look more carefully at how it can be made more transparent, clearer and more environmentally friendly. I know that there is concern about this issue on the Tory Back Benches, and I encourage those Members to continue to put pressure on their Front Bench. We need to ensure that our farmers are able to support and protect their crops, but we need to protect our pollinators at the  same time.
Let me now turn to a matter that shames our nation: the state of our rivers. Not one English river is in a healthy condition, not one meets good chemical standards, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. The state of our waterways has not improved since 2016, five years ago. England has the worst river quality in Europe. The World Wide Fund for Nature reports that rivers in England are “used as open sewers”, and that targets for 75% of them to be healthy by 2027 are “very unlikely” to be met. More recent research has found that the rate of unlawful discharge of sewage into waterways could be up to 10 times higher than the rate suggested by the Environment Agency’s prosecutions.
It will be impossible to have clean rivers with the pedestrian approach that Ministers are currently taking, which is why the cross-party concerns that we have heard during this debate and throughout the passage of the Bill should be taken more seriously. However, it is not only Ministers who are to blame for the poor state of our rivers; we must hold water companies responsible too. Research by The Guardian has found that raw sewage was discharged into rivers across England and Wales 200,000 times in 2019, for a total duration of 1.5 million hours. I think we would all have sympathy with the Minister’s argument that in extremis, in the event of severe weather, raw sewage discharges into rivers should be permissible, but we need to ensure that that happens only in extreme circumstances. This is a daily, regular, continual occurrence, and it is unacceptable.

Rosie Duffield: Would my hon. Friend agree with me and my beleaguered constituents in Whitstable that this is not an unusual occurrence, and that it is happening more and more frequently? On the Whitstable coast, for example, it is ruining the lives of   kayakers, sailors and swimmers and ruining the tourist industry. The removal of the lines in the amendment that have teeth would be a real disappointment.

Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As a regular wild swimmer myself, I recognise that this is a concern not only to people who swim in our nation’s rivers but to those who value their biodiversity. I think that the Minister has underestimated the strength of feeling in this area.
There is a way through this, however. There is a route that could result in progressive improvement in the reduction in the number of raw sewage discharges, that could simultaneously collect the required data and that could protect our environment without big increases to bills, with appropriate investment and a sense of urgency from Ministers. There is a route for that, and I suspect that further compromises will be necessary on this point when the Bill returns to the House of Lords and then comes back to us. I do not think we are yet done with this.

Matt Rodda: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key is to focus the big water companies on this issue? They have significant resources; they are large, wealthy businesses. Many people use our rivers, including many residents in Reading who live next to the Thames, the Kennet and the Loddon who are affected by this and very concerned about it. We are downstream of a number of effluent emissions, and people want to see real action from Thames Water.

Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly good point. People want to see action. This is not something that concerns only politicos; the public want to see proper action as well. We need to put pressure on the Minister to do the right thing, and I am afraid that more pressure will be put on her on a cross-party basis. What she has announced is a step in the right direction, but it does not reach a compromise that is acceptable. We also need to put pressure on the water companies. Water companies such as Southern Water have presided over huge amounts of discharge into our natural environment, but it is not just those companies. Southern has had an enormous focus as a result of its huge fine for deliberately venting sewage into the sea, but we need every single water company to step up. To achieve that, we need pressure from the companies’ shareholders to do so and also pressure from Ofwat.
Ofwat needs to prioritise action to deal with raw sewage outflows into our rivers much more in the business plans. If it is not incentivised or required to do that, it will not do it. That is the power the Secretary of State and the Minister have over water companies under this privatised system. They have the power, but they are choosing not to use it to put in the investment that we need. That is why we need to see further improvement on this amendment, and I suspect that there will be further improvement on it, but I would also encourage the Minister to find a good answer to the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi):
“When will all English rivers be sewage free?”
That seems a simple question, and our constituents want to know the answer. If she cannot provide the answer, we must recognise that there is a bigger problem here that we need to look at.
Turning to habitats, I am proud that the British people have an ambition to protect the environment. All of us are here reflecting the views of our constituents who want to see more action to protect the environment. Not everyone knows how much carbon is emitted from their community on a daily basis, but we all recognise how many trees there are and the volume of the birdsong chorus in our communities. Nature matters. Dr Andy Purvis from the Natural History Museum has said that the UK has
“led the world in degrading the natural environment.”
We only have half our biodiversity left as a nation; we have lost an awful lot of species and habitats and we cannot risk losing any more.
The habitats regulations, which are the first line of defence in providing strict protections for the UK’s finest wildlife sites and endangered species, are so important, yet clauses 113 and 114 essentially give the Secretary of State the freedom to do what he likes with those regulations. He is required only to “have regard” to the need to enhance biodiversity when making changes, but “having regard” is not sufficient when we are in a climate and ecological emergency. That is why we are seeking to protect Lords amendment 65, which would ensure that powers to amend these regulations did not weaken their important environmental protections and could be used only for environmental improvement. I struggle to understand why anyone would not agree with the case that the Lords have made on that.
The public want to see us protect our forests and woodlands, and they want to see us plant more trees. The Climate Change Committee, the independent body set up to advise the Government, has been clear that we need to raise our current 13% forest cover to 17% by 2050 if we are to have any chance of meeting our climate goals, but we know that the Government’s slow, pedestrian and managerial approach to tree planting means the target will not be met until 2091. Their action does not match their soundbites, as it must if we are to hit our climate goals.
Planting more trees in England is strongly supported by the public, by business, by local councils and, looking at their press releases, by Ministers as well, so why are Ministers failing to plant sufficient trees? It is not because they do not enjoy enough support, it is not because the public will not support further measures and it is not because the public will not support further spending on this, so what are the obstacles and inhibitors that stop Ministers from delivering more trees? We need to see further action on tree planting by mobilising more of the power of the state to get this done.
On an issue where there is cross-party and full public support, we need Ministers to do better than they are at the moment. England is being left behind in the UK’s family of nations when it comes to tree planting, and we are being left behind on the global stage, too. If Ethiopia can plant 5 billion trees a year, including planting 350 million trees in a single day on 29 July 2019, why can we not have similar ambitions and scale of delivery?
Although we should be planting more trees, we must also be careful of losing trees, which is why Labour supports Lords amendments 94, 95 and 66. We know that deforestation, legal and illegal, is increasing alarmingly across the planet, but we also know that, far too often, we measure the impacts only within our own nation.  Our global consumption and global supply chains must be taken into account if we are to prevent deforestation. Allowing illegal deforestation to become legal deforestation is a “get out of jail free” card that does nothing to get our planet out of trouble, so we need to see further advances. I am glad the Minister is making progress on certain commodities that come from stressed areas, but I encourage her to go further and do more.
Briefly, could the Minister ask the Financial Conduct Authority to issue new guidelines to financial institutions on deforestation risk? No British bank should be bankrolling deforestation internationally.

Tony Lloyd: I have a simple question for my hon. Friend, following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. How do we differentiate between illegal logging and legal logging? There is no such mechanism known to humankind, so it is a farce, frankly, to say that we will ban illegal logging and allow legal logging in the Amazon rainforest.

Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend raises a good point, and it is why we need firm action not only from the Government but from the supply chain. We also need enforcement of our high standards, which must not be undercut in any trade deals. Food and produce produced to lower standards abroad must not undercut domestic industries or our environmental and animal welfare standards.
I thank Labour peers, Cross Benchers and peers from other parties for their work on this Bill. Until the votes earlier, the Bill was in a much better place than it was at the start. I deeply regret that the Government are whipping their MPs to remove many of those improvements, and I hope Conservative Members will consider what further pressure can be put on Ministers to improve the Bill.
On the important issue of river sewage, I want to work on a cross-party basis with Ministers to find a better compromise. I do not think what we have just heard will convince Opposition Members or Conservative Back Benchers, but there is a route through this, and that is firmer action and a clear timeline as to how we will address this problem.

Philip Dunne: It is a great pleasure to be in the Chamber physically to discuss the Environment Bill, which the Select Committee I am privileged to chair considered in pre-legislative scrutiny. I share the pleasure of the Minister and the House that, at last, this Bill is at the point of concluding its passage.
I will confine my remarks to Lords amendment 45 and Government amendment (a) thereto. I do so because the origins of much of the work, as the Minister has been generous to admit—the Government amendments and amendment 45—stem from the private Member’s Bill I was fortunate to be able to introduce to this House before covid struck.
As a consequence of the pandemic and its impact on the parliamentary schedule, this is the first opportunity I have had since February 2020 to discuss the subject of that Bill, because we never got to Second Reading. Therefore, it is of immense pleasure to see many of the points raised by me. I had support across the House.  Some 135 MPs were kind enough to express support for the campaign that non-governmental organisations got together to support my Bill. We had the support of about 20 different campaigning groups, which helped to craft the Bill and to gain support from members of the public. We had close to 95,000 people at the most recent count, but at the time of the Bill about 45,000 people expressed support for it.
One thing that happened during covid was the enforced extra leisure time that people up and down the country had. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who speaks for the Opposition, described his own joy of wild swimming. It was a new-found joy for many people, including members of my family, during lockdown. They were finding the rivers and waterways of our country a suitable place for recreation. They would not have expected them to be as adversely polluted as they have been. This has been a result of many factors, but, in particular, sewage over the past decade or so.
I did not come into politics to stand up and talk about crap. I am not going to use that word again, but I have become something of an expert on dealing with human effluent in this country. It is not a particularly comfortable place for me and I do not want to have to do it for the rest of my life, but at the moment I am finding that there is a great deal of interest, inside and outside this place, in how we ensure that we do not treat the arteries of nature, which is what our rivers are, as the cesspit of humanity. The measures that the Minister has taken up with alacrity from my Bill are all moving in the right direction to take steps to reduce the discharge of sewage into our rivers and thence into our oceans.
I wish to start my specific remarks by paying tribute to the Minister for the work she has done in picking up my Bill, persuading her officials that this was important to her and therefore making progress when the Bill got to the Lords in the way that she has described to us this evening. She wanted to support my private Member’s Bill when it was first introduced, but at that point in the parliamentary cycle the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had a legislative load of unprecedented scale. It had the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Environment Bill and all the Brexit statutory instrument legislation, and said that that was the reason why it could not at that time get behind  my Bill. The Minister has personally delivered these  changes, and I want to acknowledge that and thank her for doing so.
Equally, I wish to put on the record my thanks to members of the other place who have also grappled with this issue closely, particularly the Duke of Wellington. I am pleased to tell the Chamber that it is the Duke of Wellington and not the Duke of Westminster, as he is frequently referred to in that place in these debates,  who picked up the primary clause of my Bill, the duty on water companies not to discharge sewage and to progressively reduce harm and improve the sewerage system. That is the amendment he put before the House and the Lords decided to bring back to this House. I accept, having discussed this at considerable length with him and with the Minister, that that amendment is not perfect and things could be done to improve it, but  it does reflect the core of my private Member’s Bill. Although I agree with everything else in Lords amendment 45 and will vote for it, I am not in a position to vote for  Government amendment (a) to the Lords amendment because, as others in the House have expressed quite well, we need to ensure that water companies feel that provision is there in statute to compel them to pay attention to the issue. The water management plans are a good idea, but they do not have statutory force and could be changed. I do not think this Minister would do anything other than bear down on water companies in respect of this issue, but it may have less priority under another Minister.

John Redwood: Is there a possible compromise? The Minister said that the regulator could set and enforce targets and extract penalties; would that be a way forward? Could we get the Minister to come up with some tough regulatory targets that fall short of the absolute guarantee of a legal statement?

Philip Dunne: There will be targets—there are water-quality targets in the Bill anyway—and the Minister referred to the guidance that she is on the point of finalising for the next pricing review period for Ofwat. My Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, is currently conducting an inquiry into water quality, and we will make some recommendations to strengthen that guidance, so there are tools that can be used. That does not, though, get away from the fact that in my view there should be a primary legislative duty on water companies, to persuade them to treat this issue with sufficient seriousness.
People, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), have quite reasonably asked what the proposal would cost. Last week, our Committee heard evidence from Thames Water, which is currently investing in the largest capital treatment-works programme in our lifetime. It is a £4.6 billion investment, the purpose of which is to take away 37 million tonnes of sewage, out of a total of 39 million tonnes spilt legally into the Thames by Thames Water. It will have a huge impact on the reduction of the amount of sewage that is legally spilt into the Thames. The cost will be an increase of £19 per household in the bills of Thames Water’s water-rates payers in London. That illustrates quite well that, although the costs of improving the network are going to be significant —possibly huge: the Minister gave a range that is even bigger than the amount the Government have spent to combat covid—it will take decades.
When we asked the Secretary of State about this issue last year, when he appeared before our Committee for a different inquiry, he acknowledged that we will not deal with the problem of exceptional spillages out of water-treatment plants until such a time as the drainage system completely separates surface water from foul water. There are something like 200,000 km of combined sewers underneath our streets and fields. While they are combined, it provides the opportunity for water-treatment plants to be overwhelmed by excessive rainfall. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, made the point that it is meant to happen only on an exceptional basis, but it absolutely is happening routinely. We discovered that information after the Government put pressure on the water companies to introduce event-duration monitors, which they have now done across almost all the network. That is giving rise to the information that The Guardian is collating  that shows that the completely unacceptable spillage of sewage into rivers is routine. It has to stop. That was the intention behind my private Member’s Bill and is the reason why I continue to talk about this subject ad nauseum. I am much looking forward to the day when this Bill receives Royal Assent and I can get on to other matters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: The Question must be put no later than six minutes past 7. Colleagues can see that there is a lot of interest, so will they please show some time discipline?

Deidre Brock: These amendments are almost entirely focused on English environmental matters, and many Members, as you have noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, wish to speak from English constituencies, so I will make this contribution short.
Lords amendment 43, while laudable in its intentions, inappropriately constricts the powers of Scottish Ministers in a devolved area. Although I absolutely support its general aims, those decisions should properly be made by the Scottish Government and Parliament and not by this Chamber or indeed the other place.
In closing, I wish to acknowledge the shadow Minister’s comments about tree planting in England lagging behind the rest of the UK. In 2019, more than 80% of the UK’s tree plantings were delivered by Scotland. I urge the Government to listen to colleagues on these Benches and get a move on.

Cherilyn Mackrory: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate today as I have I sat on the Environment Bill Committee and, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, was part of the water quality inquiry. Because of time limits, I will restrict my remarks to proposed new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991 in Lords amendment 45.
May I say more widely that there is a lot to be proud of in this Bill and, as we come to discuss these finer matters, we should not take away from the hard work that has taken place over the past few years? I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary State, my constituency neighbour, on all the hard work that they and their Department have done on this. It has taken a lot to get cross-party agreement, and, during the Bill Committee, we were never in disagreement on the direction of travel; it was always on the semantics of what needed to happen and where. That says a lot about this Parliament.
As we have heard, steps have been taken in the  Bill, with sewerage undertakers being required to  produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, setting out how a company will manage and develop its drainage and sewerage system over a minimum 25-year planning period and how storm overflows will be addressed through those plans.
The Government have amended the Bill on a number of occasions to respond to Members’ concerns on storm overflows. Amendments to the Bill at Committee stage in the other place would require the Government to produce a statutory plan, as we have heard, to reduce discharges from overflows and the harm that they cause and to report regularly to Parliament on progress. Further amendments were made on Report, which will place new duties on water companies, requiring them to report  overflows in real time. We have heard about this, too, and it is already starting to happen. None the less, it beggars belief that this has not been happening routinely for years and that we have had to rely on voluntary groups, as we found out in our inquiry, to do a lot of this monitoring work upstream and downstream. It is really welcome that the water companies will now be compelled to do this from now on.
I look forward to the Government being required to publish a report before 1 September 2022 explaining the actions needed to eliminate storm overflows, including their costs and benefits. This report will provide Parliament, the public, and the water industry with upfront, clear and comprehensive information on the feasibility of the plan and the cost of elimination. Between the Government plan on storm overflows and the new elimination report, I believe that we are on track for real transparency from the Government and from the water companies. It will mean that the public can see how far we have to go on this huge issue.
However, the Government could go further. I am constantly pressed on this matter by Surfers against Sewage, which is based in my constituency, and by a large number of passionate constituents, and I share their frustrations. Without the legal duty, there is nothing to compel water companies to take immediate action to tackle sewage pollution, which could mean that our rivers continue to decline indefinitely and irreversibly. The cynic in me understands why the Government cannot commit to this at this stage. It is my opinion—and it is only my opinion—that were the provision put in the Bill, the water companies would be compelled to say that, as the Government have put it in the Bill, they have to pay for the infrastructure upgrade. To pay for it, therefore, we either have to put up taxes or put up bills. That is a conversation that must happen down the line; it is not right to compel the Government to do that right now. That is the only reason why I am supporting the Government on this matter at this time, but they should be reassured that I will be pressing DEFRA again and again to make sure that we get this matter absolutely right.
I understand that we are not at the end of the road yet and that the Bill is yet to become law. When it does become law, people can judge the commitments and  the publications of the Government—for example when we have the Government report on the costs and  benefits of eliminating storm overflows. Last week the Environmental Audit Committee questioned the five chief executive officers of the water companies, including Susan Davy of South West Water, who I have met a few times to discuss upstream thinking projects on farms and so on. There was an acknowledgement and an agreement that Cornwall’s rivers are in trouble for many different reasons. At this point, I declare an interest: my husband is, and has been since his youth, a keen salmon and sea trout angler, as well as a bass charter fisherman and now a commercial fisherman for the under-10 metre fleet, but—this will become relevant in a few minutes—he does not use nets.
Salmon numbers are low and have been declining in Cornwall for a long time. I was pleased to hear the water companies and everybody else confirm that the rivers are in a poor state, so I wondered why Cornwall  Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority is planning a byelaw in Cornwall to ban netting for the under-10 metre fleet purely to try to recover the salmon population. I have spoken to the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), about how we can stop that knee-jerk reaction and perhaps do some data gathering over the next four years, before we decimate the under-10 metre fleet and make them lose their livelihoods. Netting is not the only reason that the salmon populations are being lost.
I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I will end by thanking the Department for this truly groundbreaking legislation. There is no such piece of legislation anywhere else in the world and we should rightly be proud of that. I hope that this is a starting point and that we can go further to ensure that we get everything that we want from the water companies.

Tony Lloyd: Lords amendment 43 addresses a real and important issue. Although I listened carefully to what the Minister said to the House, it simply did not go far enough. We know that the decline in the population of pollinators has been serious. For example, it is estimated that we lose some £500 million-worth of Gala apples every year. If we add up the other fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators, the economic cost is enormous. But this is more important than simply the economics of the agricultural industry, although that is important.
The decline in pollinators is also about habitat loss, as the Minister said, but the Government are not yet doing enough to restore those habitats. We also know that the impact of pesticides is real. The Minister said that the Government follow the science, but we do not have the science on this. We do not know about the impact, for example, of the joint use of products such as fungicides and pyrethroids. We know a little bit about the impact of neonicotinoids on the honey bee, but we do not know about the impact of neonicotinoids on other pollinators. We simply cannot follow the science if that science does not exist.
When we were leaving the European Union, one of the Government’s commitments was that we would maintain the ban on neonicotinoids because of the known impact. They do not simply kill honey bees directly; they also prevent the reproduction of honey bees and possibly of other pollinators, and make the nervous system of the honey bee no longer functional so that solitary bees, for example, which are also important pollinators, may simply not return home to feed their brood. We do not really know the impact of neonicotinoids, except that it is bad.
The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) made an important point earlier, when he said that Ministers come and Ministers go. I say to the Minister that an important lesson in life is this: never trust Ministers to make decisions unless we have transparency. We can respect individual Ministers, but we need a consistency of approach that outlasts individual Ministers. On the question of the protection of pollinators, it is important that we have transparency and the capacity genuinely to follow expert science—to build that scientific base, but with expert science.
Earlier this year, we saw that the Secretary of State was prepared to use the exemptions from the neonicotinoid ban to allow the use of neonicotinoids with respect to  the sugar beet crop, because there was enormous pressure from the sugar industry and, to a degree, from some sugar beet farmers. In fact, the Government did not follow the science then, because the experts advised the Government that that was the wrong decision, but Government Ministers still made that decision. They were wrong; the experts were right. The funny thing is that a good number of farmers who have been made aware of that feel that they were hoodwinked by the Government. Some have said that they would not use neonicotinoids next year on the basis of what happened this year. That is important, because the reason we need Lords amendment 43 is that it allows us to move on to the basis of genuinely following the science, genuinely protecting the farming industry where that is appropriate, and absolutely guaranteeing that we protect pollinators—not just honeybees but across the piece—from the impact of pesticides and the damage they can do.
I implore Members to think very seriously about this. It should not be a partisan, party issue; it goes way beyond that. If you believe in the value of pollinators, and quite frankly our agricultural system would be destroyed without them, then please—

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech about the importance of pollinators—not just honeybees, although they are hugely important—and the economic and environmental benefits of these very valuable insects. Does he agree that it would have been better for the former Minister to have listened to a broader range of advice about neonicotinoids? Does he also agree that it would have been wiser for the Government to continue to follow the regulation from the European Union and not to try to diverge from that in this important area, and indeed others?

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister does listen. Although the Government recognised that there was no need to use the exemption this year because of the weather conditions, that may not apply next year or the year after, so we need to follow the experts in a way that they most certainly were not followed by the Government.
Amendment 43 is not partisan; it is in the interests of everybody. I hope the whole House will seriously think about supporting its retention.

Ruth Edwards: There is a lot covered in this group of amendments, but in the interests of time I will limit my remarks to the three Ps of pollinators, pesticides and poo. We are beekeepers at home. As I speak, my husband is processing the honey from our seven hives in our kitchen. For reasons I have never fully understood, this seems to involve coating every single implement in said kitchen in honey, so I am quite resigned to going back on Friday evening to a kitchen that resembles the aftermath of a house party thrown by Winnie the Pooh. Wish me luck.
Starting with pollinators and pesticides, the UK already has legislation that regulates pesticides that was transferred from the EU. It takes a tougher, hazard-based approach to regulation rather than the risk-based approach that many other countries use. The Bill requires that pesticides have no unacceptable effects on the environment, having particular regard to its impact on non-target species, which of course includes all pollinators, not just bees.  Amendment 43 would replicate part of this existing framework, which sounds to me like a recipe for confusion. It also seems to be jumping the gun on the new national action plan for sustainable use of pesticides, which I look forward to seeing before the end of this year.
So, on to poo. Storm overflows designed for emergencies are now being used as a daily method of sewage management. In Rushcliffe in 2020, Severn Trent recorded storm overflows at three points in the village of Radcliffe-on-Trent alone, totalling 6,854 hours, while in the village of East Leake, the sewage treatment works there discharged 58 times for a total of 715 hours. Yet Severn Trent has still not acknowledged the need for a new pumping station. I welcome the measures in the Bill that will require water companies to publish data on storm overflows both on an annual basis and in real time, especially because it took my team months to extract the data that we needed from Severn Trent.
The Bill also puts a duty on water companies to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, including how storm overflows will be addressed. Those plans will cover a minimum 25-year horizon, which is crucial, because much of the problem in Rushcliffe comes from investment in drainage and sewerage not keeping pace with development and new homes.
The Bill also puts a duty on Government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows next year. I believe that is the right approach, because it acknowledges two things. First, it acknowledges that reducing storm overflows is the responsibility of a wider range of actors than just water companies. As the Rivers Trust has said, delivering a plan will require contributions from the whole of society, and in particular landowners, developers, highway constructors and homeowners, to divert surface water away from sewers. I am concerned that proposed new section 141A of amendment 45 covers only sewerage undertakers, leaving other significant stakeholders off the hook. We need a comprehensive strategy that addresses the problem from all angles.
Secondly, as implied by the first point, and as has been discussed today, this is going to cost a lot of money. Initial estimates, as the Minister said, range between £150 billion and £650 billion, and it will probably require some fundamental changes to how we do things. Neither of those is reason not to tackle the problem. I firmly believe we should do so, and the Bill makes a first, important step towards doing that, but we need to ensure that we understand the costs, the likely customer bill increases and the trade-offs against other areas that we want to see water companies investing in. While I support the aims of the amendment, and I acknowledge and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for all his work in this area and in strengthening the Bill to date, I will not be voting for the amendment tonight. We need to go further, but we need to make sure that is based on data.
The final thought I offer is that although debates such as this naturally focus on what is not in the Bill, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) in recognising all the great things that are in the Bill and the huge, fantastic job that the Minister has done, including on strengthening protection for ancient woodlands, the conservation covenants, the scrutiny of forest risk products in the supply chain and  a legally binding target to halt species decline by 2030. That is just in the part of the Bill we are discussing now, and I think those things are worth celebrating.

Tim Farron: I want to say very briefly that I am deeply concerned that the Government have chosen to disagree with Lords amendment 43. We recognise that there is a gap in the authorisation process for new pesticides, which does not look at the long-term impact of pesticides on bees and other wild pollinators. Others have spoken about the vast importance of bees and wild pollinators to biodiversity and, frankly, to our capacity to feed ourselves as a country. I am yet to be convinced that the Government are acting in the wisest long-term interests of our environment and our agricultural economy by refusing to accept that entirely reasonable amendment from the other place.
Like others, I am about to talk poop—not for the first time, as I am sure others would add, and nor for the last. Lords amendments 45 to 48 are a collection of reasonable amendments that seek to add pressure on the water companies and Ofwat to ensure that we do not see the dumping of untreated or poorly treated sewage into waterways and lakes without significant penalties or the possibility of local communities getting action quickly to rectify those matters.
In my community in south Cumbria, we suffered as a consequence of Storm Desmond. We saw the River Kent polluted so very badly by a storm overflow from the Wattsfield treatment works just outside Kendal, and it basically killed the entire fish population of that river. That was Storm Desmond, which, by the way, was meant to be a one-in-200-years event. I can tell the House that in a 10-year period, we had three at least one-in-100-years events. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the idea that storms are the only time there are sewage overflows is absolute nonsense and the water companies hugely abuse that loophole.
In the neighbouring communities of Burneside and Staveley, one of which is inside the Lake district and the other just outside—beautiful villages—there are regular incidents of sewage on the streets several times a year at certain points. The only answer we tend to get from United Utilities, our water company in the north-west, is that we have to bid for the next capital round for something that it is blindingly obvious needs to be done there and then. They are environmental and public health hazards. It is obvious what needs to be done, but the water company can ignore the community and kick it into the long grass. The pipes need widening, which costs money, and United Utilities knows it does not have to do it, so it does not.
I am also deeply concerned about the state and quality of the water in Lake Windermere, which is the largest lake in England and the heart of the British tourism industry as the second most-visited place outside of London. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my early-day motion 505, which deals with the issue in more detail. We had untreated sewage going into Lake Windermere for the equivalent of 71 full days in 2020. That is a place in the Lake district with 20 million visitors every year. I do not want reports; I want action. I do not want an overview to be taken; I would like   United Utilities, and others who contribute to the pollution of our largest lake, to be prosecuted and mandated to take immediate action. That is not happening.
Likewise, when it comes to septic tanks, there is no regulation, no registration and no help for people with septic tanks to make sure that they comply. I want the Government to make better use of the powers that they already have and designate Lake Windermere and the Rivers Brathay, Kent and Rothay as bathing sites, which would allow action to be taken right away.
I ask myself why the Government will not accept these four incredibly reasonable amendments from the Lords. My great fear is that they want to protect the water companies more than water quality. This is the moment for them to prove that that is not the case.
The Lake district is a world heritage site. Earlier this year, we sadly saw Liverpool lose its world heritage site status, reminding us that that is possible. I do not want the Government failing to tackle water quality in the most beautiful part of Britain to be the reason we lose our world heritage site status.

Eleanor Laing: There are five hon. Members seeking to catch my eye and I propose to call the Minister soon after 7 o’clock, therefore the arithmetic can be done. If everybody takes two to three minutes, they will all get in, but if not, some people will not be called. That is not up to me; it is up to all of you.

Tim Loughton: I wanted to speak on interim targets in the first group of amendments, but given the time constraints, I have saved myself for sewage. I rise to support the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, which is the most important amendment we are faced with this evening.
I acknowledge that this is a landmark piece of legislation. I congratulate the Minister on the way that she has listened and on the length that she has gone to on the sewage issue. Frankly, however, when it comes to sewage discharge, my constituents do not want another taskforce, an aspirational target, or a discretionary duty of care. They do not even want more consultation. They just want a legally enforceable obligation on our water companies to stop them routinely discharging raw sewage into our rivers and seas. That is the bottom line.
The Bill, as it is framed, does not go far enough. Without that legal obligation, water companies can still cause harm by their sewage discharges and there is no guarantee of any immediate action to tackle sewage pollution. I shall be supporting the Duke of Wellington’s amendment because my constituency has a coastline with some of the best kitesurfing in the country at Lancing, because I support Surfers Against Sewage, and because I am a coastal MP for a constituency where we have had many instances of discharge.
I am afraid that we are served by Southern Water, which is the worst offender. Although the new management have made great progress from all the illegal cases of discharge that went on, for which they have been handsomely and quite rightly fined, it is still happening too much on a routine basis. I support the private Member’s Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), as did the Minister, so why are its provisions not in the Bill if the Government are serious about this?
Storm discharges are happening far too often. I understand the implications of extreme weather conditions and that, if we do not do something about it, we will have sewage popping up from under manhole covers and into people’s homes and gardens, but we should be doing more about increasing capacity to deal with those events, and I am afraid it is just not happening. We are talking not just about raw sewage, but about primary treated sewage, which is still doing a lot of harm when it gets out. This can only get worse with the huge house building pressures that we have in the south-east in particular. The pressure is going to get greater, but I am afraid that the capacity to deal with it is not increasing at a commensurate rate. The requirements on sewage companies to do a clear-up when there have been discharges are not nearly tough enough.
People have had enough of this. We are weary of excuses about learning lessons, and about how a certain company is going to do better in the future and has no greater priority. The amendment needs to send out a strong message to put water companies on no uncertain notice that enough is enough and that there will now be a legally enforceable obligation to do far more, taking all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows and proactively demonstrating that they have done so. They must show that they have improved the sewerage system, with the Government and their agencies bringing all their forces to bear to make sure that they abide by that, and that when they do not, they are properly punished. That is the minimum our constituents should expect. I hope that is what the Duke of Wellington’s amendment actually achieves. It is what my right hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill would have brought in, and I urge the Government to think again about that.

Caroline Lucas: I will be brief, but I will simply continue this theme about Lords amendment 45, which, as many hon. Members have said, simply does not go far enough. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for all his work on this and for his chairing of the Environmental Audit Committee, where this has been such a key issue for us.
One of the reasons why I want to speak about this follows on from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), because I too have Southern Water in my constituency and, frankly, its record has been abysmal. In July, it was ordered to pay a record £90 million fine after an investigation by the Environment Agency found that it had caused almost 7,000 illegal sewage discharges between 2010 and 2015, which lasted a total of 61,000 hours—the equivalent of over seven years. What is shocking about that is that these discharges were happening not by accident, but because Southern Water knew that the penalties were not serious enough to deter it from doing it. That is the real concern. That followed its being fined £3 million in 2019 and ordered to pay back £123 million to customers to compensate for serious failings in the sewage treatment works and deliberately misreporting.
There is a major issue here. It has affected my constituency, where back in 2019, over 50 discharge notifications were issued in Brighton and Hove, whereas in 2020 absolutely none was issued at all. Essentially, the system is not working properly. We need to have the legal duty that was in the Duke of Wellington’s amendment.  Without that, there is essentially nothing to compel water companies to take immediate action to tackle sewage and pollution. That legal duty is in line with the Government’s stated ambition, and I do not understand why they will not put it in the Bill.
Briefly, I also support Lords amendment 43. Others, including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), have made a really powerful case for why that matters so much. I simply want to put on the record as well that I was disappointed that Lords did not uphold their previous support for protecting rural residents on the issue of the impact of pesticides on human health, because that is a big exposure problem too.

Siobhan Baillie: With genuine thanks to the Minister and her team, I will speak to Lords amendment 45 on storm overflows. It is not rocket science why I and many of my colleagues receive so many emails and so much correspondence about river pollution, as the thought of sewage in our rivers is revolting. I know one lady who chose to swim the length of the River Severn, which is more than 200 miles. She got to Gloucester, but ended up in hospital because she had swallowed some raw sewage. This is a health and biodiversity issue; it is about leisure and living. I can see the River Severn from my home, and we all want clean and good quality waterways.
I will keep my remarks brief. I backed the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). Stroud is an incredibly environmental area, and smart environmentalists challenge me all the time. Unusually, that Bill managed to satisfy the majority of people, which is because my right hon. Friend consulted campaign groups, individuals and the public. He went to water companies and tried to find wording, language and a private Member’s Bill that works. That “what works?” approach is important. Not without regret, therefore, I will be backing the amendment from the Duke of Wellington that mirrors the private Member’s Bill. I think we need that hard action in the Bill now, and to then work out how we make it work from that point. We see technology changing. A business in my constituency is working to take raw sewage and turn it into aviation fuel. We just do not know what is around the corner, but if we get the Bill in place, good things will happen, certainly for our rivers.

Jim Shannon: I want to bring the protection of pollinators from pesticides to the Minister’s attention. She has replied to that issue, and provided some reassurance. However, I am aware that my local council back home is cultivating areas of biodiversity to strengthen the bee population. We are all aware that honeybee hives and the honeybee population has reduced by some 40% in recent years, which has also affected the decline in the butterfly population. Can the Minister reassure me that work is being done to address that figure of 40%?
The Minister has reassured me about the agriculture sector and the critical input of farmers. However, I am aware that pesticide authorisation in the UK is being undertaken by the Secretary of State with the consent of the devolved nations, but that after Brexit, the UK no longer has oversight of pesticide use in Northern Ireland. Again, I highlight the difficulty of the protocol.  In this House I advocate for change, but it is change that cannot apply to Northern Ireland. I understand that importance of that.
I am firm believer that we are good stewards of the wonderful creation that we have been granted, and we should make use of the beautiful world we have in the best way. That is why I am supportive of a number of amendments tabled by the Government, and others, during the passage of the Bill. I encourage the Government to reach out and educate the young people of today, who seem to know more about the environment than do the old hands and people of my generation. It is important that the children of today have something left for them tomorrow, and with that in mind the message must start in this place. This Bill is a decent foundation to begin the work that needs doing to secure the future for our grandchildren’s children, and so much for the future.

Robbie Moore: It gives me real pleasure to speak about the Bill once again, and I thank the Minister, who has worked incredibly hard to bring this hefty Bill through the House. It was a pleasure to sit on the Bill Committee. Let me use my short time to focus quickly on Lords amendment 45, which deals with water quality and storm overflow. As the Minister will be aware, I represent a constituency that contains the first river to be recognised with bathing water status in the UK. Dealing with and improving water quality is very dear to my heart. Although we have that bathing water status, that is very much the start of the process, because it is putting pressure on our utility company, Yorkshire Water, to clean up the River Wharfe. I very much want Yorkshire Water to put in that level of investment over the next five years, to ensure that our River Wharfe is cleaned up and we achieve good bathing status.
I want to highlight the very good work in the Bill that can work alongside Lords amendment 45, including Government amendment (a) to that Lords amendment and the original clause 76, which makes it compulsory for sewerage undertakers to produce a drainage and sewerage management plan to address the impact of overflow on rivers. That will come alongside legally binding targets that will, in the short term, lead to more assessment of drainage and wastewater issues. In the long term, those plans will improve the resilience of our rivers during extreme weather and guarantee a reduced risk of sewage getting into the River Wharfe through surface water flooding.
Let me finish by saying that we must use the Bill, once it is passed—I know that time is of the essence—to put as much pressure as possible on our utility companies to put in that investment. They owe it to our constituents and to the environment to clean up the river system.

Rebecca Pow: I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a heated session, but I think that shows how strongly we feel about these issues.
I will touch first on storm overflows, which dominated the session. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his moving and powerful words, as ever. I have great sympathy with him, because I too have been wading in effluent for quite some time now. I take what he says. We also heard vociferous  speeches from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas); my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who truly outlined the complexities of dealing with the storm overflow issue—it is not straightforward and there is not one answer; my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), who was very clear in what she said; my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore); and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
I have listed all the things that we are doing on this issue that were not in the Bill before. This is all new. We have the statutory plan that the Government have to produce on discharges, we have the new duty on water companies to publish data on overflows, we have reporting processes, and the water companies have a duty to monitor water quality. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), also spoke powerfully on this issue. We have had much conversation about it, and I think we are coming from the same place, but I say to him that we also have the drainage and sewerage management plans, which will set out how the water companies will manage their sewerage systems, and the Government have been really clear that we expect storm overflows to be addressed in those plans. That is very clear in the explanatory notes.
One Member asked, “What’s happening right now?” From now until 2025, water companies will invest just over £7 billion on environmental improvements in England, and £3 billion of that will be spent on storm overflow improvements. This work is starting now, and it is really important to flag that. It is not the case that nothing is happening; there is a great deal happening, but there will be a great deal more happening as a result of the Bill.
We believe that new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991 introduced by Lords amendment 45 is redundant, and I ask the House to agree to our amendment (a) to leave out lines 7 to 14 of that Lords amendment. I will say, though, that we are listening. We have listened all along and we have acted all along. The Government are absolutely committed to reducing sewage in our water. Nobody thinks sewage in water is a good idea, and I hope we have demonstrated that we have been very strong on that.
Let me quickly correct something that I mentioned about ancient woodland in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in his seat. On the NPPF, in relation to policy under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that would not bind decisions under the Transport and Works Act 1992 on hybrid Bills. I just wanted to correct that. However, I can reassure the House that biodiversity net gain will cover nationally significant infrastructure projects. That is very important.
Pesticides were talked about a great deal. We have listened carefully, but I am confident that we have got the correct existing regulations in terms of bees and all our pollinators. I hope everyone agrees that we are bringing through some very strong and exciting measures on the protection of ancient woodlands, which I announced  together. I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu on conservation covenants, which will provide reassurance to landowners. We are not supporting Lords amendments 94 and 95. On Lords amendment 65, we will be publishing a nature recovery Green Paper that will set out robust protections for the future.
On those grounds, I really hope the House will support our position tonight. I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 182.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 43 disagreed to.
More than four and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day). The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

After Clause 78 - Storm overflows

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 45.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 204.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 45.
Lords amendment 45, as amended, agreed to.

After Clause 106 - Habitats Regulations: limits on powers to amend

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 65.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 174.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 65 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 66 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 67 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (e) made in lieu of Lords amendment 67.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 94.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 179.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 94 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 95 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 46 to 63, 71 to 74 and 91 to 93 agreed to.

Schedule 9 - Charges for single use plastic items

Rebecca Pow: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 85.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 85, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 36 to 42, 44, 68, 76 to 84, and 86 to 90.

Rebecca Pow: I am very happy to finish these proceedings on a really positive note. I am delighted to offer amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 85 to expand the scope of the single-use items charge. Amendment (a) will allow the charge to be imposed on single-use items made from any material, not just plastic. This charge will help us to future-proof the Bill and protect the environment for generations to come by providing a powerful tool to incentivise the right shifts towards more reusable alternatives to single-use items and towards a circular economy. We want to take this opportunity to strengthen our hand and encourage citizens to reduce, recycle and reuse.
I also urge the House to accept the relatively technical amendments made to the Bill in the Lords that will improve both the Bill and delivery. They will support the swifter and more effective implementation and operation of extended producer responsibility measures, allow consistency in enforcement powers for waste tracking in Scotland, and provide clarity on the exercise of search and seizure powers for waste crime. We have also accepted all the recommendations of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the remaining amendments implement those recommendations.

Luke Pollard: I am glad that the Minister has listened to the concerns that were expressed about the throwaway economy and the throwaway culture that we have seen. Since the pandemic hit us, much of the progress that had been made in addressing single-use plastics has gone into reverse, with more single-use plastics being used and more being disposed of, including the emerging threat to much wildlife of PPE being disposed of in an inappropriate way. I am glad that the Minister has taken action to listen to the concerns of the Lords, which will now include extension of the single-use charge to other items that accompany this. That is a positive step and Labour Members support her in doing so. I invite her to look again at some of the other aspects around this that we have discussed today.
It is important to finish this Bill soon. It is an okay Bill—it is bit meh—but we do need the measures in it to be put in place soon. I know that it will be considered again by our friends in the Lords next week.
I invite the Minister to have words with those programming Government business to see whether this Bill can be brought back before COP26. Although I would like this Bill to go much faster and further, and although there are bits that are clearly insufficient, it is a step forward. Besides, I know that the Minister has plenty of press releases saying, “Landmark Environment Bill” ready to be sent, and I would hate to think that she would not get a chance to do so before COP26. I would be grateful if she brought forward those measures beforehand, but the Opposition welcome this positive step forward to address our throwaway culture.
Lords amendment 85 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 85.
Lords amendments 36 to 42, 44, 68, 76 to 84, and 86 to 90 agreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 2, 3, 12, 28, 33, 43, 65, 66, 94 and 95;
That Rebecca Pow, Selaine Saxby, Heather Wheeler, Ruth Edwards, Luke Pollard, Mary Glindon and Deidre Brock be members of the Committee;
That Rebecca Pow be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Security Update

Lindsay Hoyle: I have agreed to the request from the Government to make a statement, as I believe this is a subject that the House will want to be informed about at the earliest opportunity. It is a subject on which all colleagues will have strong views, especially in view of the death of our colleague Sir David Amess. However, I remind Members that it is the case that a police investigation is ongoing. It is therefore important that Members do not say anything that might impede that investigation or any court case that might follow. I therefore ask Members please not to speculate on the circumstances around our great friend and colleague, Sir David death.

Priti Patel: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about right hon. and hon. Members’ security.
Operation Bridger was established in response to the murder of our dear colleague Jo Cox as a nationwide police protection programme to provide security measures to all Members. Following the devastating and horrific attack on our dear friend Sir David last Friday, I asked each police force to review the security arrangements for all Members with immediate effect. I am assured that, since I commissioned that review, every Member has been contacted by their local police force to reassess their individual security arrangements in the wake of this tragedy. If any right hon. or hon. Member has not received contact, they should please speak to me after the statement.
In parallel with that review, the joint terrorism analysis centre has conducted an independent review on the risk facing Members of Parliament. While we do not see any information or intelligence that points to any credible, specific or imminent threat, I must update the House that the threat level facing Members of the House is now deemed to be substantial. That is the same level as the current national threat to the United Kingdom as a whole. I can assure the House that our world-class security and intelligence agencies and counter-terror police will now ensure that this change is properly reflected in their operational posture.
I will always ensure face-to-face contact, robust debate and the wider benefits of our democracy are defended and protected, but we must all take this change in risk seriously. I would like to urge all Members to access the range of security provisions and support available under Operation Bridger and through the parliamentary security department and the Metropolitan police’s parliamentary liaison and investigation team. As well as for our own sake, we have a duty of care to protect our staff and the general public.
I know that every single Member will take, register and act upon on the advice that is given to help our country be kept safe from terror, and, of course, to enable our own conduct when it comes to making sure that democracy is defended and protected. I commend this statement to the House.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I thank the Home Secretary for the advance briefing before the statement and for the time that I know she has taken to speak to many Members of the House on an individual basis.
We are brought together this evening in the most devastating circumstances. We were all shaken to the core by Sir David’s death. It has been impossible not  to be moved this week by the powerful tributes across  the House from his many, many friends. What made the pain even harder was that it came so quickly after the murder of our friend and dear colleague Jo Cox. Our thoughts are with their families and loved ones, whose lives will never be the same again, but who will no doubt take enormous pride in the remarkable contributions that Jo and David made to this country.
I know that in the face of such unspeakable hatred we stand united and unshakeable in this House that those who use violence in an attempt to divide us shall never win. We refuse to be intimidated by these dark forces. That also goes for the vile individual or individuals who erected a noose in Parliament Square today.
Yet in order to stand firm in the face of such threats, we must do everything possible to guard against these violent positions, not least as we hear, as the Home Secretary has set out, that the threat level to MPs has been raised to substantial. We accept the assessment made by the joint terrorism analysis centre that the threat has increased. We must now take the necessary steps not just for our own safety, but for that of our staff and constituents.
I would like to take a moment to thank the police; the security services; your offices, Mr Speaker; and Commons staff for the extraordinary work they do to protect us. I am grateful, too, to policing representatives for the briefings they have afforded me and I thank them for all they do.
May I ask a few questions of the Home Secretary? Is she confident that our police, security services and Members’ security will have the resources they need to guard against this increased threat? Can she say more to Members and their staff about the additional guidance and support that may now be required? Can the Home Secretary update the House on when the wider review she announced of Members’ security will be published? Can she also outline whether she will look more widely at the protection of all those in public life, including those serving in local government?
I welcome the swift action promised by the Prime Minister in that the online harms Bill will be delivered swiftly, and I was particularly glad to see mention of criminal sanctions for company executives—a much-needed reform that we have long argued for on the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members are committed to doing everything possible to address these challenges, as we know how appallingly high the stakes are. I know the whole House is committed to doing everything possible to address the awful events of last Friday. Hatred and division will never overcome us. In that spirit, we work together collectively to do all we can to make sure something like that cannot happen again.

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and, I must say, for the joint and collective recognition that we have a shared responsibility in how we conduct ourselves and how we act. If I may say so, that has been reflected in the way in which, organisationally, everyone across the House has come together—from the support given by you, Mr Speaker and your team, and of course the Lord Speaker at the other end of  Parliament, to the parliamentary policing support and the teams that we all depend on for MPs’ security in our own constituencies.
There has been an incredible effort nationwide, and I want to pay tribute to all police operatives under Operation Bridger for the work they have been doing. As ever, my thanks go to the intelligence agencies, the security services, JTAC and counter-terrorism policing. The work has been quite remarkable—it really has.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points, and to be fair they are points that we touched on in the Chamber on Monday. It is very sombre that we are having this statement today after the terrible tragedy that took place on Friday. It is also a recognition of the fact that we want our democracy to be defended and, rightly so. We want to conduct our business in the open and transparent way that all Members have successfully done over so many generations.
On that note, that is exactly why, through the agencies and Government structures, we have stood up the wider work of the defending democracy team in the Cabinet Office, which will look at other elected representatives. The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of councillors and other elected representatives, as I did in the House on Monday. We all collectively acknowledge and know—many of us have been in some of these roles previously in public life—that there are public servants across society and our country who, day in, day out, do a great deal of work in representing their communities and, importantly, in delivering public services. They have been subject to abuse, for example, and that is part of the wider work taking place.
The wider review taking place on policing is all linked to Operation Bridger, and rightly so, because that is the structure that has been set up, and is effective. We are constantly working to enhance that. Our role is to close down any perceived gaps in security, or even risks for MPs and wider assessments that may materialise. Of course, again, that is a collective effort.
My next point—and I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate the context in which I make this remark—is that it is not for us to publicly and openly discuss our security measures. We protect ourselves by working with the agencies and police. We act in a responsible way on the basis of the advice and guidance we are given, and, I should add, the support that we are given, as Members of this House to enable us to function and do our jobs as elected representatives. I would just like to emphasise that point to all colleagues, and colleagues will understand the context in which I make that remark.
Finally, all Members should be aware that through your good offices, Mr Speaker, and the support teams you have, you and I will continue to keep all Members of this House updated. Of course, there are protective security measures and packages available to Members, which we will be sharing, and we will once again be reiterating the support that is available to all Members.

Julian Lewis: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call Dr Lewis, let me say that, with the Home Secretary, we will be sending a letter to all Members of the House with a further update and we will try to keep the House informed as much as possible. I reassure the House that meetings between each of our offices have been going forward continuously to ensure that we are doing the right thing by everybody. I would  add this to what the Home Secretary said. You are being contacted about doing service. Please do not do this because that gives information we do not want to give. The other part of that is: what will happen to the data that you are giving? It puts not just you at risk, but others at risk.

Julian Lewis: May I draw particular attention to the wise words of the Home Secretary in what I think was her penultimate point about the discussion of security measures that MPs decide they will or will not take? Most right hon. and hon. Members have ideas about ways in which their security can be improved. It is very unwise—is it not, Mr Speaker?—for us to state what those ideas are in public. I am sure that, like me, every Member present in the Chamber was contacted by local and national media asking, “How are you going to proceed in future? Are you going to continue with face-to-face surgeries? What changes will you make to your arrangements?” Does the Home Secretary agree that it is quite inappropriate for the media to ask such questions, and it is quite counterproductive, and indeed self-endangering, for us to answer them?

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for his observation and comments, as well for as his question. This has been a sombre week for all of us in this House —it really has. We have lost colleagues through the most appalling attacks, first Jo Cox, and then Sir David Amess. It is not for us to be publicly discussing security measures at all. As the House has already heard me say, I urge all hon. Members, for the sake of protecting the public, our staff and our functioning democracy, to respect some of the parameters that we are speaking about now. We must also respect the fact that, to carry on in our roles as elected representatives, we have to take advice that should not be in the public domain—advice that we listen to and that will effectively shape our own behaviours. That will lead to greater public protection from safeguarding and security. We all have a responsibility to follow the words of my right hon. Friend and be very conscientious about what we say when it comes to security.

Stuart McDonald: May I associate myself fully with the remarks of the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary? I thank and pay tribute to all those involved in work to keep us safe. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, particularly so quickly after Home Office questions on Monday. It is vital—our security and working practices are being debated—that we are kept abreast of the broad thrust of what is going on and I back the points that have already been made. Details of what is going on must be kept private.
We are also fully behind the Home Secretary remarks about making it our mission to protect democratically elected representatives, but also to protect a key part of that representative role, which is meeting and interacting with our constituents. It is imperative that we consider the implications for everybody, not only MPs but our staff and everyone who works in the House of Commons and beyond. As the shadow Home Secretary said, we must consider every level of democracy, including our hardworking councillors. We should always be careful  that by adding extra protection to one group we do not make another group vulnerable. I am pleased with the Home Secretary’s reassurance in that regard.
These first urgent steps are welcome, and I join the Home Secretary in encouraging colleagues to take up the extra measures that have been offered to them. As she said, it is important not to lose sight of the broader cultural change that is required, and transforming a political culture in which harassing, intimidation and threatening politicians is seen as something that comes with the job. That is not something we can do overnight, but we should all work together to ensure that it happens.

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I think we can judge by the tone of the House, in the light of the tragic events that have taken place and the reasons we are here having this discussion, that we are absolutely united in our determination to work together on this. This is also about the safety of our citizens and our country, and our ability to function and conduct our business as democratically elected Members of this House, while ensuring that other pillars and aspects of society where a great deal of great work takes place—good, important work by other elected representatives—are also safeguarded. Safeguarding the sanctity of our conduct around democracy and delivering the service to the British public is vital.
Alongside that, let me briefly touch on the point about the cruel environment, frankly, of the online space. I absolutely echo the words that were said earlier today, including by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, about working together. The online space has become far too permissive of too much cruelty and harm, and it is not just levelled and leveraged towards elected Members of Parliament. We see children, and people of different races and different religious groups, targeted and affected by some of the most awful, barbaric statements. That is what has to stop and change. That absolutely means that we have a lot of work to do in this space, but we will hold those responsible for hosting such cruel material on their platforms to account because we absolutely want to bring an end to this.

John Redwood: Many of us are very worried on behalf of our staff, so can the Home Secretary please make sure that there is good private reassurance, advice and additional support for them? They often face objectionable things too.

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak about our staff, and with that acknowledge the incredible work that they do to support us, which enables us to go about our business as constituency MPs. On that point—I know that this has been touched on in the House already, today and earlier this week—our staff are subjected to some of the most appalling abuse. It comes to us, but they are the ones who receive it, see it, take the telephone calls and, sadly, receive the emails. Again, we will continue collectively to provide support to them. In the light of the substantial support that has been provided to MPs, I would like to restate that members of staff, working with their Members of Parliament, should feel free to come to speak to PLAIT and the parliamentary authorities about some of the measures that they can adopt, through what is on offer through the House and the wider work, to ensure that  they feel assured about their own safety and security and ways of working outside the Palace of Westminster and while they are here.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and, through her, express my thanks for the huge amount of work being done by the police and the Security Service to keep us safe. She will know that some of the targeting online that undermines democracy is particularly aimed at black and minority ethnic MPs, and that there is increased targeting of women MPs too. Could she say something about her approach to that as part of the security assessment?

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. First, the type of appalling abuse that we have seen online is abhorrent and unacceptable. I still find it incredible that—actually, through many anonymous platforms as well—the most cruel and appalling abuse comes towards elected Members of Parliament of all backgrounds, but female MPs have been subjected to the most appalling abuse, and there should be no tolerance of that whatsoever.
There is work taking place through Mr Speaker’s office and the wider parliamentary security teams around online profiling—I think that is probably the best phrase to use—linked to looking at MPs’ profiles online and giving all MPs support when they are subjected to abuse and harassment online. Many of those measures are already in place—the right hon. Lady, and hon. and right hon. colleagues, will be aware of that—but there will be further information coming to all colleagues about what more will be done on that basis, how they can be assured and how they engage with the teams in Parliament.

Wendy Chamberlain: I  thank the Home Secretary for her statement, but I will pick up with her, after the statement, a particular MP’s case in this regard. We are 650 individuals representing 650 constituencies covered by a number of police forces. To pick up on the comments by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), there is a variety of support available to us. What I want to ask the Home Secretary is: what support will be in place for individual forces to help Members to make the right decisions about the support that is available to them? It is not for MPs to decide what is the best support; it is about taking those recommendations on the threat assessment, so we can take appropriate and proportionate support to protect ourselves and our staff.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady makes a very important point, but what I would say is that this is at a national level. All police forces, through Operation Bridger, are absolutely engaged. There is national policing leadership through Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council—she will be familiar with the structures around that, in particular. Part of this work—I would like to emphasise this to all colleagues—is ensuring consistency across the United Kingdom and across all police forces for all Members of Parliament. That is why I stood up this work over the weekend: to ensure that all hon. Members and right hon. Members had been contacted, particularly as we were in a  weekend situation with Members out and about in their  constituencies, plus looking ahead to this weekend  and future weekends—consistency of communication, consistency of advice, consistency of support to all Members and docking in with the wider parliamentary security that is stood up through the Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team and through Mr Speaker’s office.
Finally, I emphasise to all MPs that, as ever, through the discussions and dialogues they have with their police leads and their police forces, particularly in constituencies, the support and resources are absolutely in place—they are there. However, in the light of the changing threat, the changing and evolving picture, resources and guidance will constantly change should we need to do anything else in terms of advice and support for Members of Parliament. This is an agile system. I hope all Members have seen that in the response and support they received in a very short and concentrated period of time post Friday. We will continue to update all Members and that will come not just from the parliamentary side here, but at a local level through their local police forces.

Hilary Benn: I am sure the whole House would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the leadership you have shown and for the absolutely palpable care that you have for us as Members of the House of Commons in your communications. Long may that continue. May I say to the Home Secretary that our staff will very much appreciate what she said a moment ago about the support that is available to them? On the subject of consistency, may I just ensure that Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will be absolutely a part of the process? If we are going to have a consistent message about what is available and the funding being there to pay for things, it is no good if that consistency does not extend to the rules that IPSA applies. If I could encourage her to pick that point out—I am sure she is already doing so—we would all appreciate it.

Priti Patel: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, it is through Mr Speaker’s offices and diligent work and support for all Members that that has absolutely been picked up and addressed. As I emphasised to all colleagues in the House today, we have to be agile and flexible. When it comes to providing support to MPs, that is clearly something IPSA will be engaged in. It will be working with all colleagues to make sure that that message is carried through.

Kirsten Oswald: I appreciate the tone that the Home Secretary has taken in going through this update this evening for us. I was interested in what she had to say about other elected representatives, such as councillors. In due course, it would be helpful to hear more about what that might look like. I am particularly interested in some reassurance in relation to staff members, as other hon. Members have said, not just here but in our constituencies. They are there when we are here. I wonder if she is able to say a little more about the ongoing support that she anticipates being available to them, so they too can feel reassured about their wellbeing.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the point about staff members not just here in the Palace of Westminster, where we have incredible support across the parliamentary estate—I think all right hon. and hon. Members would agree with that—but at a constituency level, and I should emphasise this, through  engagement with local police forces. That equally applies to constituency offices, when it comes to local policing and engagement and through the policing work—through Op Bridger—post-today, in particular, with the threat-level change. That ongoing dialogue and support will absolutely be in place. But I would like to say to all colleagues that, while we are here, clearly, our constituency staff must be supported and protected, and they will have, through Operation Bridger, a contact point in the constituency for policing that they should absolutely engage with to cover not just MPs’ security, but their security and their place-of-work security, and to go through the diligence, checks and all the measures that we know that we need to follow.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s statement. I wonder, though, whether she shares my concern that there was no tangible evidence of a threat to David, there was no tangible evidence of a threat to Jo, and there was no tangible evidence of a threat to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). That must clearly inform both our deliberations and the thinking of all police forces as they engage with us as Members for our security, because I believe that, across the Chamber, the unknown quantity is the most concerning element for our safety and, critically, for our teams, who may be left behind.

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on this. This comes back to the agility across police forces to respond and to protect not just us, but members of the public who engage with us in our constituencies. Even while we are here, members of the public go into our constituency offices constantly, putting letters in, making appointments and doing things of that nature. That is why I absolutely urge all right hon. and hon. Members—obviously, I know that this is taking place right now—to continue to work proactively with their local police forces, stay in touch with them and engage with them, and that is both for right hon. and hon. Members and staff.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Civil Aviation

That the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 19 July, be approved.—(David T.C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Electrification of the Hull to Selby railway line

Emma Hardy: Rail links to Hull are among the poorest in the north of England, with train service reliability of 60% or lower. Currently, on average it is quicker to travel between Leeds and Hull by road than it is by rail. Electrifying the Leeds-to-Hull route via Selby and significantly upgrading the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole will mean that cleaner, faster and more reliable trains can run in and out of Hull and bring 1.7 million more people and 49,000 more businesses within two hours of Hull.
I would like to note the work that my fellow Hull MPs are doing on this issue— including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—and the work that they have put into lobbying the Government, along with thanking the leader of Hull City Council and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council leader Jonathan Owen for their commitment to this issue. I further  note the online petition, which has so far gathered over 433 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that rail links to Hull are among the poorest in the north of England; further that the current train service reliability of 60 per cent or lower means it is quicker to travel to Leeds by road; further the Humberside economy is increasingly supplying renewable energy but poor rail connections to Hull and the port do not encourage sustainable transport choices; further electrifying the Leeds to Hull route via Selby, and significantly upgrading the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole, will permit cleaner, faster and more reliable trains to run in and out of Hull; further this will provide an electrified railway from east to west and allow freight to cross coast to coast more efficiently; further the Government has committed to a carbon neutral economy by 2050.
The petitioners therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to: prioritise the rail electrification of the Hull-Selby line and the upgrading of the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole by inclusion in the forthcoming Integrated Rail Plan.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002691]

NHS Dentistry: Lincolnshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Dr Caroline Johnson: Smiles are very important. When we smile, it makes us happier and it makes those around us happier, but unfortunately many of my constituents are struggling to smile because they have problems with their teeth and just cannot get an NHS dental appointment. That has left some of them in very significant pain and discomfort.
Many constituents have contacted me to share their experiences: people waiting years to access NHS dental care; children unable to access NHS orthodontic care, with a choice between hugely expensive private treatment and doing without; service families posted to Lincolnshire struggling to get an appointment. Figures show that just 41% of adults in Lincolnshire have accessed NHS dental care in the past two years, and less than a third of children have accessed it in the last year.
Access to specialist treatment is even more limited. Lincolnshire has gone from having three full-time consultants in orthodontics, based in Boston, Grantham and Lincoln, to just one permanent consultant two days a week, based in Lincoln. Unlike neighbouring counties in the east midlands, Lincolnshire has no specialist dental services either in paediatrics or in restorative dentistry, which means significant travel out of county for patients who require more specialist help.
It is therefore perhaps not surprising that 80% of Healthwatch complaints in Lincolnshire relate to problems with access to NHS dental services. I would like to speak about how we could improve the situation for my constituents.

John Hayes: The circumstances are just as bad as my hon. Friend suggests. Indeed, Lincolnshire is the worst served of any midlands county, with the lowest proportion of dentists in the population. There are detrimental effects on children, as she said, and it is the poor who tend to suffer most. Finally, given her professional expertise, I wonder whether she could comment on those who have undiagnosed conditions that a visit to the dentist might reveal, notably oral cancer.

Dr Caroline Johnson: My right hon. Friend is a big champion for his constituents and for ensuring that they have good dental care. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who cannot be here this evening, is also vigorously campaigning to improve access to dental care in rural areas such as her constituency, particularly in Mablethorpe, where urgent care has now been restored and where she is committed to seeing non-urgent care renewed.
The journey to being a dentist begins at university dental schools, which are heavily over-subscribed. The Government trained 21% more dentists in 2018-19 than in 2008-09. It was forward-thinking of them to increase the number of dentists; given the increase of only 7% in population, one would have expected it to result in more dental care. However, that has not happened in practice, for two reasons: partly the increase in part-time working  and flexible working, but particularly the dramatic increase in the number of dentists working in the private sector as opposed to the NHS. What is the Minister doing to increase the number of dental students still further? What is she doing to ensure that they are trained particularly in areas of low provision?
I note that there is currently no university dental school in the east midlands—or in East Anglia either, in fact. It is well known that people often stay where they train; it is therefore perhaps not surprising that there are fewer dentists in Lincolnshire. Does the Minister agree that, building on the success of the Government’s investment in opening a new medical school in Lincoln to train more doctors, we should build an east midlands dental school in Lincoln, creating a centre of excellence locally for specialist services and thereby increasing the number of local dentists being trained?
There is already a precedent for opening dental schools in under-served areas: the last school was opened in Plymouth to serve a deficit in the south-west. Following the establishment of Lincoln Medical School, the addition of an adjunct dental school would be a welcome addition to Lincolnshire and the surrounding area. It would boost training and skills opportunities for young people in Lincolnshire and the wider east midlands and increase the retention of new local dentists, while helping to address access to routine NHS dental care and specialist care for patients. I also ask the Minister what efforts are being made to increase local specialist provision for paediatrics and restorative dentistry.
Following their university careers, graduates become foundation trainees, and we need to look at where we place our foundation trainers and trainees. Newly qualified dentists need to work in a foundation job to get an NHS provider number, but they can work in a private practice without one. That is something of a disincentive for people to work as NHS dentists. We also need to consider where the postgraduate training takes place. For example, there are currently six full-time training places at Grantham Hospital, just outside my constituency, but this year it has been given only two new graduates to fill those places. That is creating a reliance on temporary and overseas staff to deliver services, but it also means that there will be fewer dentists trained locally and therefore fewer dentists for the population.
Does the Minister agree that all new dentists should work their foundation year in the NHS, as doctors do, and does she agree that, given that trainees often stay where they train, the foundation places in areas of low provision should be filled first? Would she consider “golden hellos”, such as those provided in some medical specialties in areas with low provision, to attract more dentists to under-served areas?
At the heart of the issue of NHS dentists moving into the private sector is the current target-based dental contract that was introduced by the Labour Government in 2006. It was widely considered unfit for purpose even before the pandemic, which has only served to highlight its flaws, and I am aware that the Government are rightly looking to replace it. The present system effectively sets quotas on the number of patients whom a dentist can see. NHS dentists are commissioned to deliver a set number of units of dental activity—UDAs—which caps the number of dental procedures that they can perform in a given year. If they deliver over 4% more than they have been commissioned to deliver, they are not paid for  the extra work; moreover, they have to bear the cost themselves of any materials used, any laboratory work, and all other overheads. That penalises dentists who treat patients in the greatest need.
The contract also penalises dentists who under-deliver on the activity that they were commissioned to deliver, perhaps owing to difficulties in filling a practice vacancy. In addition, it pays a set amount for particular types of treatment, regardless of the number of teeth that need to be treated. For example, a dentist would be paid three units of dental activity—worth an average of £75 —for one simple extraction, but would also be paid £75 for an entire course of treatment including six fillings, three extractions and a root canal treatment, which would not be enough to cover their overheads. That means that the system effectively punishes dentists for taking on new patients with high levels of dental need.
There is also—believe it or not—a huge variation in the value of UDAs. I said that the average was £75, but in fact, across England, dental practices are paid anything between £15 and £45 per unit of dental activity delivered, with an average value of £27.50. In Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, the value is between £18 and £38, with an average value of £25. For example, in Spalding, Lincolnshire—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—two NHS practices just over a mile apart are being paid £23 and £28 per UDA respectively, a difference of more than 20% for the same work in the same town. That illustrates how dysfunctional Labour’s dental contract has become, making it more difficult for practices with lower UDA rates to recruit because they cannot pay the dentists whom they hire as much for the same work. When we compare this with private practice, where remuneration is based on actual work done, it is clear why this flawed contract has had a devastating impact on recruitment and retention among NHS dentists.
Research by the British Dental Association shows that nearly half all dentists plan to stop providing NHS services or to reduce their NHS commitment, and more than a quarter plan to move to fully private provision in the next 12 months. That has been seen in Lincolnshire, where there has been a net drop of 30 dentists providing NHS services in the year to the end of April 2021.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised the problems that this contract is creating, and are piloting alternatives. It is crucial that they deliver on their commitment to roll out new contractual arrangements by April 2022. Within the new contract, remuneration needs not only to reflect the number of dentists working in high-need areas, but to address the problems of attracting dentists to work in rural areas.
Dentists trained overseas can play an important role in filling vacancies in under-served areas. They already contribute to our NHS, and many more wish to come here, but despite the lack of NHS provision, dentists are not currently on the shortage occupation list. Moreover, it is possible for dentists from countries such as those in the EU where we recognise the equivalence of university dental qualifications to come and work here in the private sector immediately, but additional paperwork and training, with additional costs, are required for them to work in the national health service. That is a clear disincentive to working in our health service, and  I would like the Minister to elaborate on what she is doing to remove bureaucratic burdens such as those that limit NHS capacity.
The covid pandemic has further exacerbated problems with access to NHS dentistry. In the spring of 2020, all routine dental care in England was necessarily paused for two months. With social distancing, gaps between treatments and decontamination between patients having been essential since then, dentists have been able to see only a fraction of their usual patient numbers. In North Kesteven alone, 22,733 NHS dental appointments were lost between April 2020 and March 2021, further adding to the unprecedented backlog.
In the short term, to address the impact of covid-19 infection prevention and control protocols limiting the number of patients who can be seen, funding for ventilation equipment could drastically reduce the time lost between seeing patients by reducing the number of times the air is changed over an hour. Currently, after each aerosol-generating procedure—which includes most courses of dental treatment including drilling—dentists are required to leave the treatment room empty for up to an hour, which dramatically lowers the number of patients they are able to treat. The experience of my constituent Emma highlights this. Her seven-year-old daughter is still waiting for a routine check-up from November 2019, and Emma is being told that the surgery is running at 50% capacity due to coronavirus prevention controls.
This fallow time can be reduced, and patient throughput increased, by installing high-capacity ventilation. However, this can cost a practice up to £10,000. England does not currently invest in ventilation for dental practices, although the devolved nations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do. Capital funding for ventilation equipment would have a transformative effect on the throughput of patients, and would in effect pay for itself through increased patient charge revenues from paying NHS patients. Could the Minister please outline what review mechanisms are in place to reduce dentists’ covid measures—particularly now that the fantastic vaccine programme this Government have put in place means that more than 90% of people have antibodies—so that dentists can increase capacity from 65% to 100%?
Lincolnshire is proud to be the home of the Royal Air Force, including RAF Cranwell, RAF Digby and RAF Barkston Heath, which are in my constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham. Repeatedly moving location can pose particular difficulties for service families as they find themselves on lengthy dentists’ waiting lists. My constituent Karen waited five years for her and her three children to access an NHS dentist after her husband was posted to my constituency, and she is still having difficulties in securing adjustments for her disabled son. Our veterans, cared for by the Ministry of Defence during their service, often find it difficult to get an NHS dentist at the point of retirement. The Armed Forces Bill will enshrine in law the military covenant, our commitment to our brave service personnel and their families. Will the Minister outline what work she is doing to ensure that military families and veterans can access high quality NHS dental care wherever they move to, in order to meet their particular challenges of moving around frequently?
Without significant changes soon, the problems facing NHS dentistry in access and in the recruitment and retention of dentists will continue to grow. My constituents  in Lincolnshire deserve to be able to see an NHS dentist, and dentists working in Lincolnshire deserve a contract that correctly rewards them for the work they do and addresses the perverse incentives that currently exist. After a decade of work on the new system, there can be no more delays. I hope the Minister can give me assurances that the Government will stick to their commitment to roll out new contractual arrangements by April 2022, so that my constituents can smile once more.

Maria Caulfield: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing this important debate. I am really pleased to hear dentistry getting some more parliamentary time and being put on the radar, because it is such an important issue. I am aware that there are long-standing concerns around dental access in parts of the east midlands. In my response I will consider the impact of covid on access to dentistry. We are aware of this, and I will focus on it initially. However, we have to acknowledge that there were problems in accessing NHS provision before covid. Even once we are through the recovery from the pandemic, we will need to address those issues once again. They will not disappear once the pandemic has passed.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, dentistry posed a significant risk during the pandemic because of the aerosol-generating procedures. I thank all the dental teams across the country who showed such resilience and dedication during this period, because they kept going and provided urgent care while facing considerable risk and anxiety. The steps we took during the pandemic ensured the safety of both dental patients and staff, but they have led to a reduction in the number of patients who can be seen.
We have worked closely with NHS England to consider the level of NHS dentistry that can be safely delivered in the environment of a pandemic. The thresholds that have been set for dental practices since the start of the year are based on what is achievable while maintaining infection control measures.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know the UK Health Security Agency published new guidelines on 27 September that include three pragmatic changes to infection prevention and control measures, with a focus on elective care that allows providers to start making further safe changes to open up their services. I take her point, and I will consider what more support can be given for ventilation to help dentistry premises open up further still.
In the light of the reduction in activity, dental practices have now been asked to deliver as much care as possible, prioritising urgent care, care for vulnerable groups and children, and delayed planned care. Practices are now being asked to deliver 65% of their units of dental activity and 85% of contracted units of orthodontic activity from 1 October. Our figures suggest that we are starting to see a natural return to pre-covid levels of activity in dentistry, and I am pleased to see that in England urgent care has been back to pre-pandemic levels since December. We have made real progress there.

John Hayes: It is widely acknowledged that the Minister brings both understanding and diligence to her role. Does she recognise that there are particular   problems in rural areas such as Lincolnshire? We hear a lot in the place about urban deprivation and metropolitan needs, but we hear rather less about rural deprivation. In healthcare, public services and dentistry in particular, our county is peculiarly deprived. Will she take particular measures to help rural places such as Lincolnshire?

Maria Caulfield: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I was going to address. Officials tell me that the areas where we are seeing significant gaps are referred to as “sheep” and “seagulls,” with the sheep being rural areas and the seagulls being coastal stretches. They are the two areas of the country with a significant shortfall in NHS dentistry provision, and they are the two areas on which we will particularly focus.

Martin Vickers: My constituency contains both sheep and seagulls. One of the problems, of course, is that rural villages and market towns are attracting increasing populations and we are seeing massive planning applications. I cite Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency as one example. What work is the Department doing with local authorities to make sure that, where there are major planning applications, public services and particularly dentistry are sufficient to meet the need?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and across Government Departments we are discussing the provision of both general practitioners and dentists for new developments. I am keen that dentistry is on a par with GP provision, because it is often an afterthought. I am keen that we push it up the agenda, and this debate helps.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Will dentists have a voice on care panels in the new integrated care systems?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for that query. I am keen that dentistry has a louder voice than it does now.
As I was saying, part of this debate is about raising the profile of the issue. I reassure her that there are a number of things happening, particularly in her region. NHS England Midlands and East, which covers the east of England, is putting in place a number of initiatives, about which I wish to reassure her. Additional weekend dental sessions are going to be commissioned, to take place up to March next year. There will be additional clinical capacity to reduce waiting lists where a general anaesthetic is required, particularly for children. NHS England has also begun a procurement exercise to address the lack of orthodontic access across the region, particularly in Lincolnshire. To get us through the pandemic recovery phase, we will work closely with NHS England to ensure that that is happening as fast as possible.
In the short time available, I wish to turn to the long-term plan to address the shortfall that was there before the pandemic. We are taking up some of the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made so eloquently in this debate. The core of that is about ensuring that the NHS dental contract is renewed, because we are in a perverse situation where the contract sometimes acts as a disincentive. She made points about over-delivering or under-delivering; people can be penalised, and we can understand why dentists walk away from NHS contracts. This Government are focused on addressing that.

Lia Nici: In my short time as a Member of Parliament for greater Lincolnshire, in Great Grimsby, I have been able to solve lots of constituents’ problems, but the one I have not been able to solve is dental care. A large dental practice went bust and I seem to be involved in some sort of dark art when I ask what is happening with those patients. Nothing has happened, nearly two years down the line. Will the Minister consider them as well, because I have constituents in terrible situations and I am unable to get anywhere to solve this?

Maria Caulfield: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue with her. She represents a coastal constituency, and this emphasises the point about where there seem to be gaps in provision.
I am pleased that we are being able to take specific action, both nationally and locally, to improve recruitment and retention, because that is key. This includes widening access to dental careers and utilising the skill mix in dental practices. It is not always the dentists who need to be used and we need to upskill some of the dental workers in dentistry too, so that we can understand the oral health needs of patients in specific communities. As part of that work, Health Education England is looking to address regional shortages by ensuring that training place numbers are better aligned with the needs of local populations and that we are targeting provision. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about a dental school and I will look at that suggestion. She rightly says that students tend to stay where they train, and we need to look at where the gaps are. The number of dental school places is increasing and we are getting more students through, but I will look at her suggestion.
I feel that I have not specifically addressed the situation in Lincolnshire as a whole, which is the subject of the debate, so let me reassure my hon. Friend that a number of measures are in place to address the issues there. We have introduced additional face-to-face weekend dental sessions from August this year through to March next year; there are dedicated urgent dental slots for 111 patients; and we are trying to address some specific local gaps in Mablethorpe by commissioning urgent NHS dental care sessions on a temporary basis. We also want to improve recruitment and retention specifically in my hon. Friend’s  area. Health Education England is working in Lincolnshire to recruit newly trained dentists but should perhaps look at a dental school to support that effort even further.
My hon. Friend raised orthodontic issues, which are very important for young people’s health. NHS England Midlands and East has begun a procurement exercise to address some of the backlog. Patients with a clinical need to start treatment quickly will be contacted. I reassure the House that any patient who was referred before they turned 18 but has not yet started treatment will still get free treatment, even after their 18th birthday, because the backlogs are not their fault.
I know that I have not answered all my hon. Friend’s questions, but I hope she knows that we take this issue extremely seriously. The provision of dentistry is a complex policy area for which there is no quick solution, so I shall not make promises tonight that we cannot deliver, but we are serious about trying to address the issues. I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that, although this issue is challenging, as the new Minister responsible for dentistry I am committed to playing my part in not only supporting the covid recovery but driving forward long-term improvements. We want to see a contract that is attractive for professionals and that ensures equality of access for all, across rural regions and coastal regions.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask her to meet me later this week, or perhaps next week, to discuss further the impact on military personnel in particular?

Maria Caulfield: Yes, absolutely. I have not been able to address that in my speech but I am keen to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues who have particular shortages in their areas. I want to hear what is happening on the ground and make sure, as we go forward, that the problems are addressed and we start to see improvements. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.